D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4
 4-1 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The discussion on environmental consequences summarizes potential effects on the human, 

physical, and natural environments that may result from construction and operation of the 

Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail Project (DC2RVA Project). The 

existing environment within the study area was described in Chapter 3. The effects presented in 

this chapter are based on the conceptual engineering developed for the Build Alternatives. Effects 

are identified for each alternative within the six areas defined for the Project in detail in Chapter 

2 and summarized below in Table 4.0-1. 

Table 4.0-1: Summary of Build Alternatives 

Alternative Area Alternative Description 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

3B Add One Track East of Existing 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 4A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

5A–Ashcake Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5B Add One Track East of Existing 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5D–Ashcake Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate Station 

to Ashcake) 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 

6B–A-Line Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 

6B–S-Line Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 

6C Broad Street Station Only 

6D Main Street Station Only 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

4 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-2 

For this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and 

the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) established two important 

planning dates. The first planning date is 2025, which is FRA and DRPT’s current best estimate 

of when construction of the DC2RVA infrastructure could be completed and the new DC2RVA 

service would be placed in operation. FRA and DRPT’s estimate of the year 2025 as the “opening 

day” is dependent on many factors, not the least of which is finalizing the EIS and Record of 

Decision. The date also assumes that federal funding in addition to other funding sources will be 

available at the level required to build all of the proposed infrastructure improvements and 

acquire the necessary equipment and trainsets. DRPT based this date on an aggressive but 

potentially achievable schedule assumption that all necessary permits, approvals, agreements, 

and funding could be finalized by 2020, final design would take one year (2021), right-of-way 

acquisition (if needed) would take one year (2022), and construction would take three years 

(2023–2025). FRA and DRPT also used 2025 as the date when the physical impacts associated with 

DC2RVA Project construction would take place. Thus, all of the physical impact analyses within 

this Draft EIS on human and natural resources are estimated for 2025, and compared to the No 

Build Alternative conditions projected for 2025. 

The second key planning date established by FRA and DRPT is the planning horizon date of 2045, 

20 years after the projected implementation of the new intercity passenger rail service in 2025. 

Both the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) and FRA guidance require 

that DRPT demonstrate that the proposed project is sufficient to deliver the proposed passenger 

rail benefits and an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor over a 20-year time horizon 

following the completion of the passenger project. DRPT uses operational simulations analysis, 

as discussed in Section 2.6, to test the proposed alternatives to determine if the rail capacity is 

adequate for both the opening day (2025) levels of projected freight, commuter, and passenger 

rail traffic and to determine if the infrastructure remains adequate over the 20-year planning 

horizon or until 2045. DRPT also used the 2045 planning horizon date to estimate some of the 

longer term effects of the proposed service, such as ridership, energy use, and effects on air 

quality, as well as indirect and cumulative effects. 

Proposed mitigation is identified throughout this chapter as a way to avoid, minimize, reduce, or 

eliminate potential effects of the Project. As part of the identified mitigation, applicable best 

management practices (BMPs) are also identified. BMPs are existing practices and measures 

required by law, regulation, or policy that reduce the environmental impacts of designated 

activities, functions, or processes. Although BMPs mitigate potential impacts by avoiding, 

minimizing, or reducing/eliminating impacts, BMPs are distinguished from mitigation measures 

because BMPs are inherently part of the Project and are not additional mitigation measures 

proposed because of this environmental review process. Examples of typical BMPs include 

permanent seeding, use of native vegetation, sediment and erosion control, silt fences, check 

dams, and sediment basins. DRPT will refine the mitigation measures during final design and 

ensure that they are incorporated into the DC2RVA Project. 

4.1 WATER RESOURCES 

Several federal laws protect water resources, which include the Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). These laws protect water 

resources from pollutants, discharges, fill materials, dredging, and encroachments. Water 

resources are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-3 

States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Coast Guard (USCG), and state 

departments of environment. 

Under the No Build Alternative, CSX Transportation (CSXT) would continue maintenance and 

repairs of the existing infrastructure, and infrastructure improvements that are already planned 

for the DC2RVA corridor, as defined in Section 2.5.1.1, would move forward. Anticipated effects 

of the No Build Alternative are discussed below in comparison with the Build Alternatives, 

including potential permits required. Existing factors that affect water quality, such as 

impervious surfaces and pollutants washed from the existing surfaces into receiving water 

bodies, would continue with the No Build Alternative. No changes to floodplains or hydraulic 

conditions are anticipated with the No Build Alternative. 

Due to the linear nature and length of the DC2RVA corridor, each Build Alternative would 

include unavoidable effects to water resources. Effects were calculated in Geographic Information 

System (GIS) based on the limits of disturbance (LOD) developed for each Build Alternative. 

Permanent effects include all areas where infrastructure would physically replace existing 

conditions. Temporary effects are areas required for construction of the Build Alternatives, such 

as for movement, access, or storage of equipment, that would be regraded and seeded with an 

approved seed mixture by the contractor and allowed to renaturalize after completion of the 

Project. Water resources potentially affected by the Build Alternatives are shown in the Natural 

Resources Technical Report (Appendix M). 

4.1.1 Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Floodplains 

Effects to surface waters resulting from construction of the proposed improvements are similar 

between the Build Alternatives. Typical effects would include: 

Temporary 

 Increased erosion from disturbed areas, resulting in increased sedimentation and 

decreased water clarity 

 Disturbance of in-stream habitat and aquatic species from in-stream construction 

Long-Term Temporary 

 Clearing and grubbing of stream banks, resulting in increased erosion, decreased bank 

stabilization, and potential slope failure 

 Removal of riparian canopy, resulting in increased water temperatures 

Permanent 

 Decreased groundwater recharge due to increased impervious surfaces 

 Increased nutrient loading from increased runoff and fertilizer application during the 

replanting process 

 Increased potential for toxic compounds entering the water system from construction 

equipment, increased train traffic, application of snow and ice removal chemicals, and 

application of herbicides to keep tracks clear of vegetation 

 Altered stream locations (including intentional stream relocations), flow patterns, and 

morphology 

 Use of resource (culverted streams and filled wetlands) for infrastructure placement 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-4 

The extent of effects is generally related to the length or area of the resource affected. The extent 

of potentially permanent and temporary encroachments on the water resources identified in 

Chapter 3 are listed in Table 4.1-1. The more severe impacts are associated with new or 

rehabilitated structures spanning major waterways. These types of crossings would require 

several spans and new piers or substructure to be constructed in the waterway itself. For smaller 

waterway crossings, single-span bridges or bottomless or properly embedded culverts are 

recommended. In most cases, the short-term or temporary nature of the effects caused by 

construction would allow renaturalization of the resource. The locations of all water crossings 

and the approximate LOD associated with each are presented in detail the Natural Resources 

Technical Report (Appendix M). Depending on the combination of Build Alternatives, between 152 

and 191 streams would be permanently affected by the proposed improvements. Linear and 

parallel encroachments to these streams are estimated between 26,377 and 35,422 linear feet. 

Table 4.1-1: Stream Resource Effects 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Number of Streams Stream Length (Linear Feet) Navigable Waters (Linear Feet) State Scenic Rivers (Linear Feet) Nationwide Rivers Inventory (Linear Feet) Chesapeake Bay RPA (Acres) Floodplains (Acres) 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach)

1A – – – – – P: 4.0 

T: 1.2 

P: 0.3 

T: 1.0 

1B – – – – – P: 4.8 

T: 1.5 

P: 0.1 

T: 0.3 

1C – – – – – P: 6.0 

T: 0.6 

P: 0.1 

T: 0.4 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur)

2A P: 52 

T: 68 

P: 7,198 

T: 4,022 

P: 205.7 

T: 232.9 

P: 44.4 

T: 50.2 

– P: 67.9 

T: 50.2 

P: 15.1 

T: 18.1 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads)

3A P: 16 

T: 21 

P: 1,101 

T: 1,771 

– – – P: 36.9 

T: 17.7 

P: 7.7 

T: 5.7 

3B P: 20 

T: 26 

P: 1,506 

T: 1,894 

P: 45.0 

T: 50.1 

P: 45.0 

T: 50.1 

– P: 41.0 

T: 17.9 

P: 10.5 

T: 6.4 

3C P: 43 

T: 45 

P: 4,597 

T: 1,693 

P: 44.5 

T: 102.7 

P: 44.5 

T: 102.7 

– P: 57.9 

T: 18.6 

P: 8.0 

T: 3.8 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell)

4A P: 32 

T: 43 

P: 3,627 

T: 2,798 

P: 64.8 

T: 265.9 

P: 40.5 

T: 20.8 

P: 40.5 

T: 20.8 

P: 69.7 

T: 31.9 

P:17.2 

T: 17.3 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295)

5A P: 23 

T: 25 

P: 6,928 

T: 1,623 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 16.6 

T: 12.9 

P: 5.9 

T: 2.5 

5A–Ashcake P: 22 

T: 25 

P: 6,928 

T: 1,623 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 17.7 

T: 12.8 

P: 7.1 

T: 2.4 

5B P: 24 

T: 27 

P: 9,114 

T: 2,151 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 19.4 

T: 14.4 

P: 6.5 

T: 3.3 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-5 

Table 4.1-1: Stream Resource Effects 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Number of Streams Stream Length (Linear Feet) Navigable Waters (Linear Feet) State Scenic Rivers (Linear Feet) Nationwide Rivers Inventory (Linear Feet) Chesapeake Bay RPA (Acres) Floodplains (Acres) 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5B–Ashcake P: 23 

T: 28 

P: 9,101 

T: 2,132 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 23.4 

T: 14.7 

P: 10.7 

T: 3.8 

5C P: 26 

T: 26 

P: 9,005 

T: 1,410 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 31.6 

T: 13.9 

P: 9.2 

T: 2.4 

5C–Ashcake P: 26 

T: 26 

P: 9,005 

T: 1,410 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 32.6 

T: 13.9 

P: 10.4 

T: 2.4 

5D–Ashcake P: 28 

T: 31 

P: 8,163 

T: 2,958 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 25.7 

T: 15.4 

P: 11.5 

T: 4.0 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia)

6A P: 30 

T: 30 

P: 7,523 

T: 3,384 

– – – P: 53.5 

T: 15.5 

P: 8.1 

T: 3.5 

6B–A-Line P: 34 

T: 34 

P: 9,650 

T: 3,609 

– – – P: 59.3 

T: 17.4 

P: 11.3 

T: 6.1 

6B–S-Line P: 36 

T: 30 

P: 8,819 

T: 2,333 

P: 31.7 

T: 49.5 

P: 31.7 

T: 49.7 

– P: 55.1 

T: 11.5 

P: 48.6 

T: 12.4 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6C P: 35 

T: 34 

P:10,886 

T: 3,349 

– – – P: 63.3 

T: 17.0 

P: 16.1 

T: 5.8 

6D P: 36 

T: 30 

P: 8,819 

T: 2,333 

P: 31.7 

T: 49.5 

P: 31.7 

T: 49.5 

– P: 55.0 

T: 11.5 

P: 51.9 

T: 13.0 

6E P: 30 

T: 30 

P: 7,952 

T: 3,169 

– – – P: 55.3 

T: 15.4 

P: 22.2 

T:20.2 

6F P: 36 

T: 31 

P: 8,869 

T: 2,333 

P: 29.2 

T: 51.9 

P: 29.2 

T: 51.9 

– P: 57.2 

T: 11.3 

P: 50.7 

T: 13.1 

6G P: 34 

T: 29 

P: 8,235 

T: 2,288 

P: 29.2 

T: 51.9 

P: 29.2 

T: 51.2 

– P: 57.8 

T: 11.1 

P: 48.1 

T: 13.1 

Notes: P = Permanent Effect; T=Temporary Effect. 

4.1.1.1 Designated Waters 

Navigable Waters

Although construction of the proposed project would not have any effect on this designation, 

work in navigable waters requires special consideration under Section 9 and Section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act (see Permits 4.1.5). Depending on the Build Alternative, the LOD would 

cross five to seven of the eight Coast Guard regulated navigable waters within the study area: 

 Occoquan River 

 Neabsco Creek 

 Powells Creek 

 Aquia Creek 

 Rappahannock River 

 Mattaponi River 

 James River
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-6 

State Scenic Rivers and Nationwide Rivers Inventory

The existing rail corridor was in place long before much of the surrounding development in the 

DC2RVA corridor; as such, new construction would be consistent with existing land uses and 

controlling regulations for designated waters. The most notable changes due to the proposed 

improvements would be the construction of new bridges built adjacent to and/or replacing 

existing bridges. However, the new bridges would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical 

profiles of existing structures; therefore, DRPT anticipates that the landscape and viewsheds from 

designated waters will be similar in context to existing conditions. The Fredericksburg Bypass 

(Build Alternative 3C) would require a new bridge over the Rappahannock River in a new 

location; however, the new bridge would not be in an area where the Rappahannock River is 

designated a State Scenic River. The State Scenic River designation ends north of the proposed 

bypass near Ferry Farm. Consistent with the guidelines for protecting designated waters, the use 

of BMPs would ensure the preservation of the ecological resources within the waterways and 

their local watersheds. The DC2RVA Project is not expected to affect river designations.

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) 

Transportation projects, including rail lines, are conditionally exempt from the Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations. By constructing improvements in 

accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law (§10.1-560 et seq. of the Code of 

Virginia), the Stormwater Management Act (§10.1-603. 1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia), and the terms 

and conditions of water quality permits required by USACE, Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality (Virginia DEQ), and Virginia Marines Resources Commission (VMRC), and an erosion and 

sediment control plan and a stormwater management plan approved by Virginia DEQ, all of the 

Build Alternatives would be consistent with the CBPA and its implementing regulations. 

Virginia Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

Each Build Alternative would be consistent with the established Virginia Coastal Zone 

Enforceable Policies as related to fisheries management, subaqueous lands management, 

wetlands management, dunes management, nonpoint source pollution control, point source 

pollution control, shoreline sanitation, air pollution control, and coastal lands management. The 

FRA would submit a Federal Consistency Determination for the recommended Preferred 

Alternative that analyzes the coastal effects of the Project in light of the enforceable policies of the 

Virginia CZMA program and provides commitment to comply with those policies. The 

recommended Preferred Alternative would be designed and constructed in accordance with the 

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and the terms and conditions of water quality 

permits required by USACE, Virginia DEQ, and VMRC, and an erosion and sediment control 

plan and a stormwater management plan approved by Virginia DEQ. Implementation of 

proposed mitigation measures and any required permits would ensure consistency with the 

enforceable policies of the Virginia CZMA program. 

4.1.1.2 Floodplains and Floodways 

As indicated in Table 4.1-1, each Build Alternative would potentially affect Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplains. There is considerable variation in the acres 

of encroachments (both longitudinal and parallel) among the various combinations of the Build 

Alternatives – ranging from 62.4 to 124.8 acres. None of the floodplain encroachments would 

represent a “significant encroachment” (as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

650.105[q]) because of the following reasons: 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-7 

 It would pose no significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation 

facility that is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation 

route. These rail lines are not considered the only emergency evacuation route, nor do 

they support emergency vehicles. 

 It would not pose a significant flooding risk. The Build Alternatives would be designed 

consistent with procedures for the location and hydraulic design on floodplains contained 

in 23 CFR 650 Subpart A. Accordingly, the Build Alternatives are not expected to increase 

flood height elevations, the probability of flooding, or the potential for property loss and 

hazard to life. 

 It would not have significant adverse effects on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 

Avoidance and minimization efforts, including spanning floodplains where practicable 

and minimizing wetland impacts, would be made during design to avoid or minimize 

impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 

Portions of the study area are also vulnerable to tidal flooding from major storms, such as 

hurricanes and northeasters. Both types of storms produce winds that push large volumes of 

water against the shore. Hurricanes, with their high winds and heavy rainfall, are the most severe 

storms to which the study area is subjected and can produce local to widespread flooding in the 

study area. The study area also contains tidally influenced waters that are subject to tidal flooding 

in their lower reaches and fluvial flooding on the upper reaches. 

Each Build Alternative is consistent with the transportation elements of local comprehensive use 

plans and are not projected to either encourage or accelerate any growth or changes in land use 

that are not already expected. The Project would not encourage, induce, allow, serve, support, or 

otherwise facilitate incompatible base floodplain development. 

4.1.1.3 Stormwater/Drainage 

Increased stormwater runoff from construction of the Project improvements can impact receiving 

streams and associated land surfaces in two forms: long-term impacts caused by runoff from 

increased impervious surfaces and short-term impacts caused by land disturbance during 

construction. Stormwater from railroad corridors can potentially carry increased quantities of silt; 

heavy metals; petroleum products from railroad equipment; chemicals associated with snow and 

ice removal; herbicides associated with vegetation maintenance; and other chemicals associated 

with railroad cars and machinery. The proposed Build Alternatives would increase impervious 

surfaces by constructing additional rail bed and track, as well as ancillary facilities associated 

with stations, grade crossings, and bridges. The increase in stormwater runoff could increase 

erosion, silt, and chemicals entering the waterways. These materials can potentially degrade 

water quality and aquatic habitat integrity. The effects on water quality depend on the size of the 

receiving waterways crossed and the number of such crossings (see Table 4.1-1). Streams with 

low flow are more severely affected because they have less volume to dilute the runoff. 

Additional runoff as a result of the Build Alternatives would be minimal because the increases in 

impervious surface are small. Stormwater runoff from railways is generally less pronounced than 

that from roadways because much of the rail bed is permeable to rainfall (i.e., ballast and side 

slopes). Impervious surfaces have a runoff coefficient of 0.80, or about 80 percent runoff and about 

20 percent infiltration. Roadways have runoff coefficients of 0.85 to 0.95, while the runoff 

coefficient for ballasted track is calculated between 0.50 to 0.55. Although ballast is considered to 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-8 

be permeable, some runoff would collect in adjacent drainage ditches and may carry similar 

pollutants to and have similar effects to surface waters as runoff associated with paved roadways. 

Short-term adverse impacts on water quality within the study area may result from soil erosion 

and sedimentation because of land-disturbing activities during construction. Land-disturbing 

activities include construction of the rail bed, tracks, bridges, signal and communication facilities, 

and other related structures and facilities of the railroad, including grade crossings, clearing of 

right-of-way, staging areas, access roads, and borrow/spoil areas. Construction-related effects 

are likely to be similar for road and rail (see Section 4.19 for descriptions of construction 

activities). Uncontrolled erosion and sedimentation can affect aquatic algae and submerged 

aquatic vegetation, benthic macroinvertebrate habitat, and fish spawning habitat, and it can 

remove food resources for some stream species. 

The recommended Preferred Alternative would be designed and constructed in accordance with 

the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law (§10.1-560 et seq. of the Code of Virginia), the 

Stormwater Management Act (§10.1-603. 1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia), and the terms and 

conditions of water quality permits required by USACE, Virginia DEQ, and VMRC. By upgrading 

older stormwater facilities along the DC2RVA corridor, the Project could improve drainage in the 

study area. 

4.1.2 Wetlands 

As noted in Chapter 3, various wetland systems are located along extensive stretches throughout 

the 123-mile railroad corridor. Many of these systems pre-date the rail corridor and are bisected 

by the rail line itself. Existing drainage facilities beneath the rail bed have maintained hydraulic 

connections between the systems and, in many cases, allowed the persistence of these systems on 

both sides of the rail line. Preliminary designs to widen the rail bed attempted to minimize 

encroachments on these resources by widening on sides opposite of wetlands when practicable. 

However, complete avoidance could not be achieved, and DRPT anticipates permanent impacts 

to wetlands with any of the Build Alternatives. 

Permanent impacts resulting from such 

encroachments range from 22.14 to 49.64 acres 

depending on the combination of Build 

Alternatives (see Table 4.1-2). Temporary 

impacts during construction would be similar 

between the Build Alternatives, ranging from 

25.25 to 30.86 acres. The most measurable 

difference in effects among the alternatives is 

found in the effects associated with 

construction of the Fredericksburg and 

Ashland bypasses on greenfield alignments 

that cross rural areas less altered by human 

activities (Alternatives 3C and 5C, 

respectively). The approximate limits of 

disturbance and locations of potential 

wetlands effects for each alternative are 

shown in detail in the Natural Resources 

Technical Report (Appendix M). Powells Creek Crossing 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-9 

Table 4.1-2: Wetland Effects (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative PEM1 

PEM/ 

PSS 

PEM/ 

PFO 

PEM/ PSS/ 

PFO PSS2 

PSS/ 

PFO PFO3 Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach)

1A – – – – P: 0.02 

T: 0.67 

– – P: 0.02 

T: 0.67 

1B – – – – P: ––– 

T:0.01 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.01 

1C – – – – P: 0.01 

T: 0.11 

– – P: 0.01 

T: 0.11 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur)

2A P: 1.36 

T: 0.62 

P: 0.15 

T: 0.19 

P: 1.71 

T: 1.53 

P: 0.67 

T: 0.37 

– – P: 1.31 

T: 0.83 

P: 5.19 

T: 3.54 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A P: 1.57 

T: 1.11 

P: 0.42 

T: 0.21 

P: 2.40 

T: 1.30 

– P: 0.13 

T: 0.34 

P: 0.04 

T: ––– 

P: 0.70 

T: 1.49 

P: 5.24 

T: 4.45 

3B P: 1.61 

T: 1.16 

P: 0.42 

T: 0.21 

P: 2.39 

T: 1.29 

– P: 0.13 

T: 0.34 

P: 0.04 

T: ––– 

P: 0.71 

T: 1.52 

P: 5.29 

T: 4.52 

3C P: 1.92 

T: 0.92 

P: 0.54 

T: 0.10 

P: 3.92 

T: 0.90 

– P: 0.42 

T: 0.36 

– P: 17.03 

T: 4.24 

P: 23.82 

T: 6.53 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell)

4A P: 2.51 

T: 1.66 

P: 0.78 

T: 0.17 

P: 2.67 

T: 7.55 

P: 0.71 

T: 1.15 

P: 0.04 

– 

P: 0.25 

T: 0.90 

P: 1.43 

T: 3.31 

P: 8.39 

T: 14.74 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295)Z

5A P: 0.16 

T: 0.08 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.46 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.86 

P: 0.41 

T: 1.48 

5A–Ashcake P: 0.16 

T: 0.08 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.46 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.86 

P: 0.41 

T: 1.48 

5B P: 0.16 

T: 0.08 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.51 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.86 

P: 0.41 

T: 1.53 

5B–Ashcake P: 0.20 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.51 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.86 

P: 0.45 

T: 1.50 

5C P: 2.66 

T: 0.78 

– P: 2.10 

T: 0.92 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 3.69 

T: 1.70 

P: 8.44 

T: 3.47 

5C–Ashcake P: 2.70 

T: 0.78 

– P: 2.10 

T: 0.92 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 3.69 

T: 1.70 

P: 8.48 

T: 3.47 

5D–Ashcake P: 0.20 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.46 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.93 

P: 0.45 

T: 1.51 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia

6A P: 1.59 

T: 0.29 

– P: 1.07 

T: 0.33 

P: 0.36 

T: 0.10 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.40 

– P: 0.18 

T: 0.77 

P: 3.21 

T: 1.89 

6B–A-Line P: 1.30 

T: 0.31 

– P: 1.07 

T: 0.33 

P: 0.36 

T: 0.10 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.40 

– P: 0.18 

T: 0.77 

P: 2.91 

T: 1.91 

6B–S-Line P: 2.48 

T: 0.64 

P: 0.20 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.28 

T: 0.05 

P: 0.13 

T: 0.06 

P: 0.08 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.30 

T: 0.22 

P: 3.47 

T: 1.03 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-10 

Table 4.1-2: Wetland Effects (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative PEM1 

PEM/ 

PSS 

PEM/ 

PFO 

PEM/ PSS/ 

PFO PSS2 

PSS/ 

PFO PFO3 Total 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia

6C P: 1.37 

T: 0.30 

– P: 1.07 

T: 0.33 

P: 0.36 

T: 0.10 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.40 

– P: 0.18 

T: 0.77 

P: 2.99 

T: 1.90 

6D P: 2.48 

T: 0.64 

P: 0.20 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.28 

T: 0.05 

P: 0.13 

T: 0.06 

P: 0.08 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.30 

T: 0.22 

P: 3.47 

T: 1.03 

6E P: 1.59 

T: 0.29 

– P: 1.18 

T: 0.33 

P: 0.36 

T: 0.10 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.40 

– P: 0.18 

T: 0.77 

P: 3.31 

T: 1.89 

6F P: 2.53 

T: 0.64 

P: 0.20 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.28 

T: 0.05 

P: 0.13 

T: 0.06 

P: 0.08 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.30 

T: 0.22 

P: 3.52 

T: 1.03 

6G P: 2.75 

T: 0.64 

P: 0.20 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.28 

T: 0.05 

P: 0.13 

T: 0.06 

P: 0.08 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.30 

T: 0.22 

P: 3.74 

T: 1.03 

Notes: 1. PEM=Palustrine Emergent (freshwater emergent wetland); 2. PSS=Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (freshwater shrub wetland); 3. PFO = 

Palustrine Forested (freshwater forested wetland); P = Permanent Effect, T=Temporary Effect. 

Typical impacts to wetlands from construction projects such as this include: 

Temporary 

 Increased erosion from disturbed areas, resulting in increased sedimentation and 

decreased water filtering abilities 

 Increased nutrient loading from increased runoff and fertilizer application (during the 

replanting process) 

 Disturbance of habitat and aquatic species 

Long-term temporary 

 Clearing and grubbing of vegetated wetland buffers 

 Introduction of invasive species 

 Decreased groundwater recharge due to increased impervious surfaces 

 Increased potential for toxic compounds entering the wetland system from construction 

equipment, increased train traffic, application of snow and ice removal chemicals, and 

application of herbicides to keep tracks clear of vegetation 

 Altered hydrologic patterns 

A small portion of the wetlands in the northern section of the alignment are tidally influenced. 

These wetlands mostly occur along larger waterways. Impacts to these waters would be 

minimized by designing water crossings to span waterways, placing as little infrastructure in the 

waters as practicable. All tidal wetlands crossed in the DC2RVA corridor are along Build 

Alternatives 1 and 2A. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-11 

4.1.3 Water Quality 

Under the CWA, a permit is necessary to discharge any pollutant from a point source into Waters 

of the U.S. through EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, 

including pollutants carried by stormwater discharges. The permits contain industry-specific, 

technology-based, and/or water quality-based limits and establish pollutant monitoring and 

reporting requirements. Water quality-based limits and monitoring and reporting requirements 

could be stricter for those streams that do not meet water quality standards (on the Section 303[d] 

list) and already have regulated total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) of pollutants. Impaired 

waters crossed by the DC2RVA Project are listed in the Natural Resources Technical Report (Table 

3-9 in Appendix M). 

4.1.3.1 Temporary Effects 

Despite protective measures, the Project could potentially result in short-term effects, such as 

increased sedimentation; increase in turbidity from in-stream work; increased likelihood of 

potential spills; and non-point source pollutants entering groundwater or surface water from 

stormwater runoff. Construction activities that could affect stormwater runoff include excavation 

to widen ‘cut’ sections and to remove unsuitable (organic) material from ‘fill’ sections; filling and 

placing ballast to support new track; relocating access roads; relocating or creating new trackside 

swales; and any substructure work required for the signal and communication equipment 

foundations, bridge or culvert installation, or station improvements. Construction-phase staging 

areas and haul roads, if needed, could also disturb the ground, potentially causing erosion and 

sedimentation. 

4.1.3.2 Long-Term Effects 

All Build Alternatives cross impaired waters, and DRPT assumes that the Project would have some 

effect on water quality. Minor long-term water quality impacts could occur as a result of increases 

in impervious surfaces and consequent increases in pollutants washed from the railroad surface 

into receiving water bodies; leaking fluids from trains; and an increase in non-point source 

pollutants from infrastructure, grease, oil, metals, maintenance chemicals, vegetation management 

chemicals, and suspended solids and other elements associated with railways. The greatest effect 

would occur with the Fredericksburg and Ashland bypasses, which would convert green space to 

railroad facilities in locations where none currently exist. The remaining alternatives would be 

located adjacent to existing facilities and incorporate BMPs and improved stormwater facilities, 

which would mitigate new conditions and may improve existing conditions. 

4.1.3.3 Impaired Waters 

The DC2RVA corridor includes 51 water crossings that have been assessed and found to have 

more contamination than allowed to support one or more of its designated uses. Most Build 

Alternatives cross the same water bodies; however, the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 

3C) would cross two fewer impaired water bodies than Build Alternatives 3A or 3B which pass 

through town. In the Richmond area, the S-Line crosses two more impaired water bodies than 

the A-Line. The Natural Resources Technical Report (Appendix M) provides a list of impairments, 

probable causes, and the potential for the DC2RVA Project to add to these impairments. The 

potential for additional contaminants is similar for all waters; however, waters that are already 

impaired may have additional restrictions in the form of TMDLs in an effort to restore designated 

uses. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-12 

4.1.4 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply 

Contamination of groundwater resources occurs when man-made chemicals such as gasoline, oil, 

and road salts enter aquifers and render their water unsafe and unfit for human use. Some of the 

major sources of these contaminants include storage tanks, septic systems, hazardous waste sites, 

landfills, and the widespread use of road salts and chemicals. Release of chemicals during 

construction, release of transported chemicals, salts and chemicals used for snow and ice removal, 

and chemicals used for the maintenance of vegetation are the main sources of contamination to 

public water supplies along rail lines. These chemicals can leach through the soil and into the 

water table from which public water supplies are drawn. 

In accordance with 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments, Virginia adopted a 

protection zone around all groundwater public sources. Virginia Department of Health (VDH) 

recommends private wells not be located within 100 feet of known contamination sources such 

as, but not limited to, sewage disposal systems, dump stations, abandoned wells, pesticide treated 

soils, underground storage tanks (USTs), and other sources of physical, chemical, or biological 

contamination; and any potential contamination sources within 200 feet should be investigated 

(VDH, 2012). The LOD for the Build Alternatives fall within the following prescribed protection 

zones: 

 Zone 1 (5-mile radius) of 3 public surface water supply intakes: Fairfax County Water 

Authority, Hanover County Suburban Water System, and City of Richmond. Fairfax 

County Water Authority and City of Richmond water supplies are located upstream of 

the existing tracks. 

 Zone 2 (1-mile wellhead protection zone) of 14 public groundwater sources. 

 Zone 1 (1,000-foot radius in which land use activities should be assessed for their potential 

to contaminate water supplies) of three public groundwater sources. 

 Within 100 feet of 14 private wells. 

Although the existing railroad facilities that fall within the wellhead protection zones are exempt, 

work required for the DC2RVA Project would include new permanent and temporary impacts 

within the wellhead protection zones for public and private wells. Construction of the new 

facilities and subsequent operation within these protection zones have the potential to introduce 

contamination to existing wells. Before construction, DRPT will evaluate the potential for 

contamination. The area of each Build Alternative within these drinking water protection zones 

is shown in Table 4.1-3. 

4.1.5 Permits 

Wetland and water quality permits would be required for construction of any of the Build 

Alternatives. The controlling regulations and permits required at the local, state, and federal level 

are addressed below. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-13 

Table 4.1-3: Estimated Area within Drinking Water Protection Zones 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Public Surface Water 

Zone 11 (acres) 

Public 

Groundwater 

Sources (acres) 

Private Wells 

(square feet) 

Fairfax County*2Hanover Count

y2

City of Richmond*2Zone 13Zone 24100-foot radius (31,416 square feet) 200-foot radius (125,664 square feet) 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A – – – – – – – 

1B – – – – – – – 

1C – – – – – – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A P: 32.75 

T: 31.05 

– – – P: 26.37 

T: 15.94 

P: 7,822 

T: 8,726 

P: 72,243 

T: 23,146 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A – – – – P: 16.91 

T: 6.39 

P: 3,343 

T: 6,406 

P: 57,106 

T: 13,279 

3B – – – – P: 16.91 

T: 6.39 

P: 16,365 

T: 8,397 

P:105,610 

T: 16,996 

3C – – – – P: 13.98 

T: 9.72 

P: 279 

T: 414 

P: 41,238 

T: 3,762 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A – P: 42.48 

T: 23.36 

– P: 0.81 

T: 1.07 

P: 37.55 

T: 27.73 

P: 4,117 

T: 25,446 

P: 18,088 

T: 45,750 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 9.25 

T: 5.52 

– P: 13,688 

T: ––– 

5A–Ashcake – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 11.59 

T: 5.32 

– – 

5B – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 9.33 

T: 6.04 

P: 609 

– 

P: 26,018 

T: 138 

5B–Ashcake – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 15.21 

T: 6.65 

P: 609 

– 

P: 15,411 

T: 2,727 

5C – P: 31.06 

T: 9.59 

– P: 4.70 

T: 1.51 

P: 44.09 

T: 11.24 

P: 4,205 

T: 1,693 

P: 19,098 

T: 2,181 

5C–Ashcake – P: 31.06 

T: 9.59 

– P: 4.70 

T: 1.51 

P: 46.53 

T: 11.24 

P: 4,205 

T: 1,693 

P: 5,410 

T: 2,181 

5D–Ashcake – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 16.12 

T: 7.07 

– P: 17,321 

T: 251 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-14 

Table 4.1-3: Estimated Area within Drinking Water Protection Zones 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Public Surface Water 

Zone 11 (acres) 

Public 

Groundwater 

Sources (acres) 

Private Wells 

(square feet) 

Fairfax County*2Hanover Count

y2

City of Richmond*2Zone 13Zone 24100-foot radius (31,416 square feet) 200-foot radius (125,664 square feet) 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – – P: 51.70 

T: 17.53 

– – – P: 21,701 

T: 3,275 

6B–A-Line – – P: 121.10 

T: 46.69 

– – – P: 16,364 

T: 2,932 

6B–S-Line – – P: 125.26 

T: 31.24 

– – P: 3.73 

T: ––– 

P: 28,214 

T: 10,324 

6C – – P: 153.22 

T: 47.50 

– – P: 23,773 

T: 1,938 

P: 55,761 

T: 7,887 

6D – – P: 119.50 

T: 31.96 

– – P: 3.73 

– 

P: 28,214 

T: 10,324 

6E – – P: 80.04 

T: 40.18 

– – – P: 21,701 

T: 3,275 

6F – – P: 129.47 

T: 32.53 

– – P: 3.73 

– 

P: 28,214 

T: 10,324 

6G – – P: 129.84 

T: 30.76 

– – – P: 31,558 

T: 13,595 

Source: VDOT-CEDAR, 2014; DMME, 2016. 

Notes: *These public water supplies are located upstream from the study area; 1. 5-mile radius; 2. Fairfax County Water Authority, Hanover 

Suburban Water System, and City of Richmond; 3. Zone 1 includes a 1,000-foot radius (~72 acres) in which land use activities should be assessed 

for their potential to contaminate water supplies; 4. Zone 2 Virginia adopted a 1-mile wellhead protection zone around all groundwater public 

sources. P = Permanent Effect, T=Temporary Effect. 

4.1.5.1 Section 401– Certification (Water Quality Certification [WQC]) 

Section 401 of the CWA states that “any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or 

operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide 

the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the state in which the discharge originates 

or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having 

jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will 

originate.” Section 401 of the CWA requires any applicant for a federal license or permit for any 

activity that may result in a discharge into waters to obtain a certification that discharge will not 

adversely affect water quality from the state in which the discharge will occur. Section 401 

requires certification by Virginia that prospective permits comply with the state’s applicable 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-15 

effluent limitations and water quality standards. Impacts to water resources would require a Joint 

Permit Application (JPA) to regulatory agencies. The JPA is submitted to VMRC who then 

distributes it to USACE, Virginia DEQ, and Local Wetlands Boards. 

4.1.5.2 Section 402–-National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Permits for the discharge of any pollutant or combination of pollutants into navigable waters are 

regulated by Virginia DEQ. 

4.1.5.3 Section 404–Dredge and Fill Materials 

Section 404 of the CWA regulates activities that may affect the chemical, physical, or biological 

integrity of Waters of the U.S. Permits for activities that result in the discharge of dredged 

materials or fill into jurisdictional waters are administered by USACE. Permits issued under 

Section 404 of the CWA must comply with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines developed by EPA. 

4.1.5.4 Subaqueous Stream Bed Bottom 

Subaqueous land is defined in Virginia as ungranted beds of the bays, rivers, creeks, and shores 

of the sea owned by the state. Through this regulatory framework, activities requiring permits 

include building, dumping, or otherwise trespassing upon or over, encroach upon, take or use 

any material from the beds of the bays, oceans, and jurisdictional rivers, streams, or creeks. VMRC 

issues permits for activities in, on, or over subaqueous lands in Virginia (Code of Virginia Chapter 

2, Title 62.1). 

4.1.5.5 Section 9–United States Coast Guard 

Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits construction of any dam, dike, bridge, or 

causeway across navigable waters without approval of the USCG. 

4.1.5.6 Section 10–USACE 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act regulates dredging and filling activities related to 

construction of any structure or type of obstruction in navigable waters of the United States. 

Permits for these activities are administrated by USACE. 

4.1.5.7 Virginia Water Protection Permit 

The Virginia Water Protection Permit Program was designed to protect surface waters, including 

tidal and non-tidal water bodies and wetlands. Virginia DEQ has regulatory authority over most 

activities affecting these waters. Virginia’s authority to protect water resources is independent of 

other state and federal regulatory agencies. 

4.1.5.8 MS4 Permit–Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

Discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) are regulated under the Virginia 

Stormwater Management Act, the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit 

regulations, and the CWA as point source discharges. MS4 programs must be designed and 

implemented to control the discharge of pollutants from their storm sewer system to the 

maximum extent practicable in a manner that protects the water quality in nearby streams, rivers, 

wetlands, and bays. MS4 permits are administrated by Virginia DEQ. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-16 

4.1.5.9 Joint Permit Application–USACE, VMRC, Virginia DEQ, Local Wetlands Board 

In Virginia, for permitting involving water, wetlands, and dune/beach resources where fill, 

flooding, or alteration of flow occurs, USACE, VMRC, Virginia DEQ, and Local Wetlands Boards 

(LWB) use a joint permitting process. Non-tidal resources use a Standard Joint Permit Application 

(JPA) form, while a Tidewater JPA form is used for most projects involving tidal waters, tidal 

wetlands, and coastal primary sand dunes and beaches. 

4.1.5.10 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act 

Projects located within “Tidewater Virginia” are subject to requirements of the CBPA. Land 

disturbance or vegetation removal in Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) require approval from 

local government and completion of Appendix C in the JPA. Individual localities are responsible 

for enforcing CBPA requirements. Local permits are not issued through the JPA process. 

Transportation projects, including rail lines, are conditionally exempt from the Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations. 

4.1.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

4.1.6.1 Wetlands, Streams, and Water Resources 

Efforts have been made throughout the planning and preliminary design process, and they will 

continue to be made in later designs to further avoid and minimize impacts to the extent practicable. 

Avoidance of impacts to water resources will be accomplished by selecting the alternative that best 

avoids such impacts and/or by routing a selected alignment around wetlands or by completely 

spanning streams rather than building through them. These measures will be made while also 

balancing potential impacts to other resources, such as residences and businesses. General 

minimization measures incorporated into the preliminary designs for the Build Alternatives 

include: 

 Minor alignment shifts to avoid or minimize impacts 

 Reduction of construction footprint to the extent practicable in areas with water resources 

 Construction of bridges over wetland areas, substantially reducing impacts in comparison 

to causeways with culverts 

 Use of bridges and open bottom culverts designed to the proper hydraulic opening to 

maintain stream morphology and integrity and that are wide enough to carry baseflow 

without altering stream depth, facilitate passage of wildlife and aquatic species, and 

decrease erosion 

 The use of stabilized side slopes and retaining walls to minimize encroachment 

 Temporary and permanent stormwater management measures 

 Use of natural stream design for unavoidable stream relocations, which means that the 

channel would mimic the characteristics of an appropriate reference stream 

 Prompt revegetation of disturbed area, in particular stream banks, immediately after 

construction to stabilize soil and reduce erosion 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-17 

Impacts to water resources would require submittal of a JPA to USACE, Virginia DEQ, and 

VMRC. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts would be developed in coordination with these 

agencies during the permitting process and incorporated into final design for both temporary and 

permanent impacts. Permanent impacts to wetlands and streams from construction activities will 

require compensatory mitigation. Guidance for compensatory mitigation from the regulatory 

agencies can be found in the July 2004 Joint USACE and Virginia DEQ Recommendations for 

Wetland Compensatory Mitigation: Including Site Design, Permit Conditions, Performance 

Criteria, and Monitoring Criteria and associated Mitigation Checklist; the March 2008 Off-Site 

Mitigation Location Guidelines; and the USACE and EPA jointly issued Compensatory 

Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule from June 2008. The mitigation rule 

indicates the agencies’ preferred hierarchy for mitigation options as follows: 

1. Purchase of compensatory mitigation bank credits. 

2. Purchase of an approved in-lieu fee fund’s credits. 

3. Watershed approach-based mitigation by the permittee. 

4. Onsite mitigation/in-kind mitigation by the permittee. 

5. Offsite mitigation/out-of-kind mitigation by the permittee. 

Virginia DEQ has also adopted this preferred sequence. Factors to be considered in deviating 

from the preference for banks include the likelihood for ecological success and sustainability, the 

location of the compensation site(s) relative to the impact site and their significance within the 

watershed, and the costs of the compensatory mitigation project. The final compensatory 

mitigation plan will be determined during the permitting process, in coordination with the 

regulatory agencies, and will likely include a combination of types of mitigation. Wetland 

mitigation requirements vary by wetland type. Typical replacement ratios of area disturbed are 

Palustrine Emergency Wetlands (PEM) (1:1), Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands (PSS) (1.5:1), and 

Palustrine Forested Wetlands (PFO) (2:1). Compensation is approved on a case-by-case basis, and 

requirements may vary. 

Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts would be based on the Unified 

Stream Methodology (USM) form. Impacts greater than 300 linear feet typically require 

compensation; however, for projects with multiple stream impacts, compensation for all 

impacts is often required regardless of the length of individual crossings. Although 

compensatory mitigation is generally not required for impacts to jurisdictional ditches or open 

waters, impacts will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and compensation will be determined 

during the permitting process. 

4.1.6.2 Floodplains and Stormwater/Drainage 

The design of this Project would include the use of stormwater management practices to address 

issues such as post-development storm flows and downstream channel capacity. The Project 

would be constructed in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 11988−Floodplain Management, 

the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations, and the Virginia Stormwater 

Management Law and regulations and include an erosion and sediment control plan and a 

stormwater management plan approved by the Virginia DEQ, or local water quality protection 

criteria at least as stringent as the above state requirements. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-18 

Existing stormwater facilities would be upgraded and new stormwater facilities would be 

implemented to capture and treat run-off. Stormwater management measures, including 

detention basins, would be installed to reduce or detain discharge volumes, to compensate 

for increased impervious surfaces. Major bridge crossings built to accommodate the 

additional rail line are designed to match horizontal clearances of existing bridges and will 

be built in parallel to avoid altering hydraulics. Storm surge protection measures will be taken 

in areas along the Potomac River where practicable. During final design, a detailed hydraulic 

survey and study would evaluate specific impacts on stormwater discharges. This evaluation 

would adhere to the aforementioned specifications ensuring that no substantial increases to 

flooding would occur. 

4.1.6.3 Water Quality 

Minor long‐term water quality impacts could occur as a result of increases in impervious surfaces, 

increases in train traffic, and consequent increases in pollutants washed from the railroad and 

bridges into receiving water bodies. Stormwater management measures, including detention 

basins, vegetative controls, and other measures, would be implemented to minimize water quality 

impacts. These measures would reduce or detain discharge volumes and remove pollutants, thus 

avoiding substantial further degradation of impaired water bodies in the study area vicinity. 

Appropriate erosion and sediment control practices would be implemented in accordance with 

the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations and the Virginia Stormwater 

Management Law and regulations. Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law requires soildisturbing projects to be designed to reduce soil erosion during and after construction. 

Implementation of BMPs would minimize increases in turbidity of waters downstream of 

construction activities. Preconstruction sediment quality assessments and water quality 

monitoring during construction may be conducted to address potential resuspension of 

contaminants and nutrients into overlying water. Further efforts to avoid and/or minimize water 

quality impacts would be made during final design. 

Such efforts to prevent impacts could include: 

 Designing the project to minimize the LOD and subsequent impacts to water resources 

 Silt fencing and measures to prevent soil erosion from earthwork entering water bodies 

 Temporary and permanent stormwater management measures 

 Conducting stream work in the dry 

 Native revegetation of disturbed areas 

 Taking practicable measures to prevent spills of fuels, lubricants, or other pollutants into 

water bodies 

 Elimination of weep hole devices that allow runoff to drip directly into waterways from 

bridges 

 Use of vegetated buffers and vegetated swales to intercept runoff 

 Use of holding basins to reduce pollution content, temperature, and intensity of runoff 

entering the water supply 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-19 

These laws have specifications that also prohibit contractors from discharging any contaminant 

that may impact water quality. If accidental spills occur, the contractor is required to immediately 

notify all appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and to take immediate action to contain 

and remove the contaminant. Additionally, the requirements and special conditions of any 

required permits for work in and around surface waters would be incorporated into construction 

contract documents, so that the contractor would be required to comply with such conditions. 

The number, locations, and abatement capacities of stormwater management facilities will be 

determined during later phases of Project design. Pollutant removal efficiencies will be used as a 

factor in determining the location and design of stormwater management facilities. 

Impaired Waters 

DRPT will ensure that BMPs and other stormwater techniques would be employed to minimize 

further impacts on impaired waters. Construction techniques designed to reduce water quality 

impacts will be employed. Clearing practices should be limited to the greatest extent practicable 

around impaired waters to limit further degradation. The DC2RVA Project will adhere to 

additional restrictions in accordance with any TMDLs developed for impaired waters. 

4.1.6.4 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply 

Efforts would be made throughout the final design process to avoid and minimize impacts to 

drinking waters to the extent practicable. Minimization measures could involve modifications, 

such as further alignment shifts to avoid or minimize impacts; the use of BMPs; the use of 

retaining walls; and temporary and permanent stormwater management measures to reduce 

transportation of chemicals by stormwater, and they should include limited or avoidance of snow 

removal and vegetation maintenance chemicals near Source Protection Areas and well locations. 

4.2 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

The No Build Alternative would not affect topography, geology, or soils in the DC2RVA corridor. 

Most of the proposed improvements associated with the Build Alternatives are located adjacent 

to existing railroad tracks in areas where the land has already been disturbed. There is little 

difference between the Build Alternatives for these resources, and aside from the proposed 

bypasses, the Build Alternatives are not anticipated to affect local topography or geology. The 

proposed Fredericksburg and Ashland bypasses would be new greenfield alignments and would 

involve the use of a greater portion of previously undisturbed areas. 

4.2.1 Topography 

Small localized changes in topography would occur with the Build Alternatives in the form of 

excavation and fill for tracks to have a smooth and gradual change in elevation in areas where 

local topographic changes are sudden. These proposed localized changes are not expected to have 

an effect on area topography. 

4.2.2 Geology 

Geology includes the underlying material (rock) the local earth is composed of and the process 

by which it was created and continues to change. DRPT does not anticipate that the Build 

Alternatives would affect area geology, aside from minor excavation, and would not affect the 

processes exerting change on area geology. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-20 

4.2.3 Soils 

Most of the land within the LOD of the Build Alternatives was previously disturbed with 

construction and maintenance of the existing railroad. Soils with construction-limiting qualities 

within the proposed LOD are listed in Table 4.2-1. The Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) provides the soils classifications listed in Table 4.2-1 as defined in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3. 

Table 4.2-1: Construction-Limiting Soils within Build Alternatives (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Suitability for Building Local 

Roads and Streets Hydric Soils 

Not Rated Not Limited1 Somewhat Limited2 Very Limited3 Unknown Not HydricPartially Hydric 100% Hydric 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A P: 5.1 

T: 2.2 

– – – P: 5.1 

T: 2.2 

– – – 

1B P: 8.9 

T: 3.2 

– – – P: 8.9 

T: 3.2 

– – – 

1C P: 9.1 

T: 2.1 

– – – P: 9.1 

T: 20.1 

– – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A P:87.2 

T: 73.5 

P: 2.2 

T: 1.6 

P: 37.8 

T: 31.7 

P: 107.4 

T: 111.7 

P: 87.6 

T: 73.9 

P: 120.2 

T: 117.1 

P: 12.9 

T:12.4 

P: 13.8 

T: 15.1 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A P: 9.1 

T: 10.5 

P: 4.6 

T: 2.3 

P: 22.6 

T: 13.4 

P: 66.9 

T: 32.3 

P: 8.8 

T: 10.3 

P: 45.0 

T: 24.7 

P: 37.2 

T: 19.3 

P: 12.2 

T: 4.3 

3B P: 16.2 

T: 9.3 

P: 6.7 

T: 2.5 

P: 28.3 

T: 14.4 

P: 77.2 

T: 38.1 

P: 15.6 

T: 8.6 

P: 53.2 

T: 27.7 

P: 46.4 

T: 23.7 

P: 13.2 

T: 4.4 

3C P: 9.5 

T: 6.7 

P: 16.1 

T: 5.6 

P: 79.9 

T: 22.8 

P: 146.8 

T: 45.9 

P: 9.5 

T: 6.7 

P: 141.2 

T: 44.6 

P: 73.7 

T: 21.5 

P: 27.9 

T: 8.3 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A P: 3.2 

T: 3.3 

P: 20.7 

T: 10.4 

P: 58.7 

T: 34.6 

P: 75.4 

T: 47.6 

P: 0.7 

T: 0.2 

P: 56.4 

T: 33.0 

P: 51.8 

T: 28.6 

P: 49.2 

T: 34.0 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A – P: 1.9 

T: 1.8 

P: 25.5 

T: 15.5 

P: 24.3 

T: 12.0 

– P: 21.4 

T: 12.8 

P: 25.3 

T: 12.1 

P: 5.0 

T: 4.3 

5A–Ashcake P: 0.5 

T: – 

P: 1.9 

T: 1.8 

P: 23.8 

T: 13.3 

P: 25.0 

T: 12.0 

– P: 22.1 

T: 12.7 

P: 25.6 

T: 12.1 

P: 3.5 

T: 4.3 

5B – P: 1.9 

T: 1.8 

P: 33.1 

T: 16.6 

P: 27.3 

T: 13.6 

– P: 25.7 

T: 14.2 

P: 30.3 

T: 13.2 

P: 6.3 

T: 4.7 

5B–Ashcake P: 0.5 

T: – 

P: 1.9 

T: 1.8 

P: 33.2 

T: 17.3 

P: 30.0 

T: 13.9 

– P: 29.0 

T: 14.6 

P: 30.9 

T: 13.5 

P: 5.7 

T: 5.0 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-21 

Table 4.2-1: Construction-Limiting Soils within Build Alternatives (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Suitability for Building Local 

Roads and Streets Hydric Soils 

Not Rated Not Limited1 Somewhat Limited2 Very Limited3 Unknown Not HydricPartially Hydric 100% Hydric 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5C P: 1.5 

T: 0.3 

P: 36.3 

T: 8.2 

P: 58.3 

T: 19.3 

P: 62.8 

T: 20.4 

– P: 33.4 

T: 13.6 

P: 114.4 

T: 28.3 

P: 11.1 

T: 6.3 

5C–Ashcake P: 2.1 

T: 0.3 

P: 36.3 

T: 8.2 

P: 56.7 

T: 19.3 

P: 63.5 

T: 20.4 

– P: 24.1 

T: 13.6 

P: 114.8 

T: 28.3 

P: 9.7 

T: 6.3 

5D–Ashcake P: 0.5 

T: – 

P: 1.9 

T: 1.8 

P: 44.8 

T: 17.4 

P: 32.2 

T: 14.3 

– P: 33.8 

T: 15.0 

P: 37.7 

T: 13.6 

P: 8.0 

T: 4.8 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A P: 9.3 

T: 1.8 

P: 5.9 

T: 1.6 

P: 35.2 

T: 17.9 

P: 117.6 

T: 55.8 

P: 5.7 

T: 3.9 

P: 95.8 

T: 45.0 

P: 28.7 

T: 12.5 

P: 37.7 

T: 15.7 

6B–A-Line P: 29.9 

T: 11.3 

P: 7.3 

T: 1.8 

P: 40.5 

T: 19.9 

P: 161.8 

T: 74.5 

P: 8.4 

T: 4.9 

P: 126.8 

T: 60.0 

P: 73.0 

T: 25.8 

P: 31.3 

T: 15.9 

6B–S-Line P: 24.6 

T: 10.5 

P: 5.9 

T: 1.3 

P: 16.5 

T: 3.5 

P: 173.7 

T: 41.8 

P: 0.0 

– 

P: 154.1 

T: 43.5 

P: 44.2 

T: 8.0 

P: 22.4 

T: 5.7 

6C P: 30.8 

T: 10.9 

P: 7.3 

T: 1.8 

P: 41.6 

T: 19.0 

P: 192.0 

T: 75.7 

P: 9.6 

T: 4.4 

P: 131.6 

T: 60.0 

P: 98.8 

T: 27.3 

P: 31.7 

T: 15.8 

6D P: 24.6 

T: 10.5 

P: 5.9 

T: 1.4 

P: 16.5 

T: 3.6 

P: 168.0 

T: 48.9 

P: 0.1 

– 

P: 154.1 

T: 46.8 

P: 38.5 

T: 11.9 

P: 22.4 

T: 5.7 

6E P: 9.3 

T: 1.8 

P: 5.9 

T: 1.6 

P: 35.2 

T: 18.6 

P: 145.9 

T: 77.7 

P: 5.7 

T: 4.6 

P: 121.3 

T: 67.0 

P: 30.7 

T: 12.5 

P: 38.5 

T: 15.6 

6F P: 25.6 

T:10.6 

P: 5.8 

T: 1.5 

P: 16.8 

T: 3.6 

P: 176.7 

T: 49.3 

P: 0.1 

– 

P: 158.3 

T: 47.2 

P: 36.7 

T: 12.0 

P: 29.9 

T: 5.7 

6G P: 26.3 

T: 9.9 

P: 6.0 

T: 1.5 

P: 17.1 

T: 3.7 

P: 175.6 

T: 48.2 

P: 0.1 

– 

P: 160.7 

T: 45.6 

P: 34.3 

T: 12.0 

P: 30.1 

T: 5.6 

Source: CEDAR, 2015. 

Notes: 1. Not Limited–Soil works well for specified use, good performance/low maintenance required; 2. Limitations can be overcome/ minimized 

through planning, design, and installation, fair performance/moderate maintenance; 3. Limitations may require major soil reclamation, special 

design, or expensive installation procedures to be overcome, poor performance/high maintenance. 

P=Permanent Effect; T=Temporary Effect. 

4.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

Before the acquisition of right-of-way and construction associated with any of the Build 

Alternatives, thorough site investigations would be conducted to determine if mitigation would 

be required for limiting soil characteristics. A geologic hazard assessment will be made to 

establish potential impacts of soil characteristics to bridges, walls, trackbed, and roadway 

subgrades, and geotechnical engineering parameters will be developed for soil conditions along 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-22 

the corridor. Bridge, wall, trackbed, and roadway recommendations will be developed according 

to the specific conditions of each site. Preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations 

and a more detailed analysis can be found in the DC2RVA Geotechnical Engineering Report. 

Compensation for soil, geologic, and topographic limitations could include: 

 The use of cut or fill to compensate for topographic changes 

 The use of retaining walls to stabilize soils 

 Removal or encapsulation of unsuitable soils 

 Blending neutralizing material into acidic soils 

 Engineering structures to compensate for limiting conditions adjustment of slope ratios, 

design heights, and depth of embedment 

 Use of stabilizing materials 

4.3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS 

4.3.1 Farmland Soils 

The No Build Alternative requires no right-of-way acquisition; therefore, it requires no land use 

conversion and has no direct effects to farmland soils. 

The Build Alternatives require permanent right-of-way acquisition that contains prime farmland 

and statewide and locally important soils (Table 4.3-1). The transition of these soils to 

transportation use is a direct effect of the Project. No unique farmland soils occur within the LODs 

of the Build Alternatives. 

Within Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) 

converts the most prime and the most statewide/locally important soils of the three alternatives. 

Within Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–

Ashcake) converts the most prime and the most statewide/locally important soils of the seven 

alternatives. 

Within Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), the Build Alternatives along the CSXT A-Line (Build 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) convert similar amounts of prime and statewide/locally 

important soils and almost twice as much of these soils than the Build Alternatives along the 

CSXT S-Line (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G). 

As required by the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA), Form CPA-106, Farmland 

Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects, is being completed for the DC2RVA 

alternatives, and the first round of submissions to the NRCS is complete. Representatives of 

NRCS completed the required agency portions of the forms. The final corridor assessment for 

each Build Alternative is also complete; the forms appear in Appendix N. The corridor assessment 

is based on the types of farmland soils present in the Build Alternatives, the existing agricultural 

uses in an individual jurisdiction, the existing agricultural uses adjacent to and within the Build 

Alternatives, and other criteria such as farm support services. 

Alternative Area 1 (Arlington): The land affected by Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C has been 

committed to urban use, which results in a Corridor Assessment Score of 0. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-23 

Table 4.3-1: Farmland Soils Converted within Build Alternatives and Farmland Corridor 

Assessment Score 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Prime 

Farmland 

Soils (Acres) 

Statewide and 

Locally 

Important 

Soils (Acres) Total (Acres) 

Corridor 

Assessment 

Score 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 

1B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 

1C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A 53.56 52.37 105.93 66 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A 26.84 17.83 44.67 80 

3B 34.01 20.62 54.63 80 

3C 69.05 84.17 153.22 118 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 4A 99.17 49.91 149.08 93 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 27.18 24.83 52.01 51 

5A–Ashcake 28.04 23.57 51.61 46 

5B 31.20 28.30 59.50 51 

5B–Ashcake 33.82 28.02 61.84 51 

5C 89.83 35.10 124.93 171 

5C–Ashcake 90.88 33.82 124.70 171 

5D–Ashcake 39.38 32.28 71.66 52 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A 45.20 7.22 52.42 29 

6B–A-Line 49.04 10.06 59.10 23 

6B–S-Line 30.79 4.59 35.38 22 

6C 49.93 10.62 60.55 22 

6D 30.93 4.59 35.52 22 

6E 45.20 14.22 59.42 24 

6F 31.78 4.65 36.43 19 

6G 32.48 4.81 37.29 19 

Source: VDOT; Forms NRCS-CPA-106. No Unique Farmland Soils occur within the Build Alternatives. 

Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia): There is a wide variety of land uses within and adjacent 

to Build Alternative 2A. There are farmland soils present within the Build Alternative, but the 

score is 66 due to the urban uses of land within the Build Alternative and the amount of 

agricultural activity within the Build Alternative. 

Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg): Build Alternatives 3A and 3B that pass through 

Fredericksburg have Corridor Assessment Scores of 80. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build 

Alternative 3C) has a score of 118 due to the presence of multiple farms within the alternative. 

Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia): Build Alternative 4A has a score of 93. 

Alternative Area 5 (Ashland): Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake has the lowest score of 46, Build 

Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 5B–Ashcake have scores of 51, and Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake has a 

score of 52. These are all fairly low scores due to the alternatives’ locations along the existing 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-24 

CSXT rail line. The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) has scores of 171 

due to the existing farms and the Stanley Agricultural District within both alternatives. 

Alternative Area 6 (Richmond): The Build Alternatives in Area 6 have lower scores than in other 

areas due to the high amount of land already committed to urban use. The full service and shared 

service Build Alternatives that use both existing Staples Mill and Main Street stations—Build 

Alternative 6F (full service) and Build Alternative 6G (shared service)—have the lowest scores of 

19. The single-station Build Alternatives at Boulevard (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line), Broad 

Street (Build Alternative 6C), and Main Street (Build Alternative 6D) have scores of 22. Similarly, 

the single-station Build Alternative at Boulevard (Build Alternative 6B–A-Line) has a score of 23. 

The two-station alternative serving both Staples Mill and Main Street stations (Build Alternative 

6E) has a slightly higher score of 24. Build Alternative 6A that serves Staples Mill only via the ALine has the highest score of 29. 

Table 4.3-1 lists the Corridor Assessment Scores for each of the Build Alternatives. The NRCS 

recommends selecting the Build Alternatives with the lowest score within each alternative area 

as part of the recommended Preferred Alternative. The alternatives with the lowest scores within 

each alternative area are the Build Alternatives that primarily utilize the existing railroad rightof-way (Build Alternatives 1A/1B/1C, 2A, 3A/3B, 4A, and 5A–Ashcake) and the two-station 

alternatives in Richmond using both the existing Staples Mill and Main Street stations—Build 

Alternative 6F (full service) and Build Alternative 6G (shared service). 

4.3.2 Agricultural and Forestal Districts 

The No Build Alternative requires no right-of-way acquisition; therefore, it requires no land use 

conversion and has no direct effects to agricultural and forestal districts. 

There is one agricultural/forestal district, the Stanley District in Hanover County, within a Build 

Alternative. Originally approved in 1978, the Stanley District is made up of seven parcels, owned 

by multiple landowners, and totals 713 acres. The district was renewed by the Hanover County 

Planning Commission in July 2015. The transition of 73.7 acres of this agricultural/ forestal 

district to a transportation use is a direct effect of the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 

5C–Ashcake) (Figure 4.3-1). A previous preliminary design for these Build Alternatives affected 

a greater acreage of the Stanley District. The design was shifted east to minimize the impacts to 

the district. One farm within the Stanley District, White Oak Farm, is also a Century Farm, as 

designated by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. This designation 

provides no formal protection at the state level but is a recognition of continuous farming for 100 

years at a particular farm. There are two other Century Farms within the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), but they are not within the Stanley Agricultural District. 

The state regulations detail a process for land acquisition or construction within a designated 

district, including coordination with landowners and the locality. Notice to landowners and the 

locality includes a report detailing the proposed action (this Draft EIS). The agricultural/forestal 

district advisory committee, county board of supervisors, and local planning commission 

review the report and the effects the Project would have on an individual district. If the locality 

determines that the Project “might have an unreasonably adverse effect on either state or local 

policy”, the locality can issue an order to direct the DRPT not to take the proposed action for a 

period of 150 days and then hold a public hearing. Before the end of the 150 days, the locality 

must issue a final order on the action, based on a majority vote of the members. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-25 

Figure 4.3-1: Agricultural/Forestal Districts Impacts – Build Alternatives 5C, 5C–Ashcake
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-26 

4.4 MINERAL RESOURCES 

4.4.1 Effects 

According to information available from the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy 

(DMME), several active and inactive mines and mineral resources are located in the DC2RVA 

corridor. Mines could be affected by direct use of the area for railroad construction or any other 

construction activity associated with the Build Alternatives, such as new grade separations. DRPT 

has determined that no mines located in the study area would be affected by the No Build 

Alternative or Build Alternatives because they are outside of the LOD. 

One known mineral resource is crossed by the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C). This 

site—Massaponax S. & G. (VA DMM permit 08288AA)—is a former sand and gravel pit. It 

appears to have been subdivided and sold for residential use. One parcel had a residence added 

in 2004 (Figure 4.4-1). 

4.4.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

Although the potentially affected mineral resource located along the Fredericksburg Bypass 

(Build Alternative 3C) is no longer in use, DRPT will ensure that additional efforts will be made, 

to the extent practicable, throughout the final design process to avoid and minimize impacts to 

the potential reuse of this resource. Minor alignment shifts or reducing the LOD could minimize 

or avoid impacts to this resource. 

4.5 SOLID WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL 

4.5.1 Effects 

Under the No Build Alternative, CSXT would continue maintenance and repairs of the existing 

infrastructure, and infrastructure improvements that are already planned for the DC2RVA corridor, 

as defined in Section 2.5.1.1, would move forward. DRPT anticipates that the No Build Alternative 

would not affect hazardous material sites. Anticipated effects of the Build Alternatives are presented 

in Table 4.5-1 and Figure 4.5-1. The estimated number of sites affected by the Build Alternatives is 

based on the number of sites mapped within the LOD (permanent and temporary) that may contain 

hazardous materials or wastes. Contaminated sites may affect the Project by: 

 Affecting the environment during construction 

 Creating significant construction impacts 

 Incurring cleanup liability to Project owners 

Additionally, areas of contaminated soil are likely to exist along the DC2RVA corridor. 

Contamination is generally due to residual contamination that can be found along any part of the 

DC2RVA corridor or contamination associated with adjacent industrial uses. The greatest 

potential of contaminated soils being disturbed is during excavation. Areas requiring fill are 

unlikely to unearth unknown contaminants. Earthwork along the DC2RVA corridor has the 

potential of encountering the following contaminants: 

 Railroad ties, usually treated with chemicals such as creosote 

 Coal ash and cinder containing lead (Pb) and arsenic 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-27 

Figure 4.4-1: Mineral Resource Impact – Build Alternative 3C
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-28 

Table 4.5-1: Hazardous Materials Sites within Build Alternatives 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Superfund/ CERCLA/ SEMS/NPL1Known HAZMAT Release2Potential HAZMAT Contamination3Petroleum Release4HAZMAT Facilit

y5

Petroleum Storage Tanks6

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach)

1A – n/a – – – – 

1B – n/a – 2 – – 

1C – n/a – 2 – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur)

2A – – 8 4 2 1 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads)

3A 1 – 5 2 – – 

3B – – 7 3 4 3 

3C – – 8 3 1 1 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell)

4A 1 n/a – – – – 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295)

5A n/a n/a 1 4 – 1 

5A–Ashcake n/a n/a 1 4 – 1 

5B n/a n/a 1 4 1 3 

5B–Ashcake n/a n/a 1 4 1 3 

5C n/a n/a 2 3 – 2 

5C–Ashcake n/a n/a 2 3 – 2 

5D–Ashcake n/a n/a 1 7 1 5 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia)

6A – – 5 8 4 7 

6B–A-Line – – 8 15 4 14 

6B–S-Line – 1 16 22 7 8 

6C – – 9 18 6 16 

6D 1 1 16 23 6 6 

6E 1 1 6 10 6 7 

6F 1 1 14 23 6 5 

6G 1 1 14 23 6 5 

Source: VDOT GIS database, 2014. 

Notes: 1. Sites proposed or already on the National Priority List. Sites in the United States eligible for long-term remedial action (cleanup) financed 

under the federal Superfund program. 2. Area known to be contaminated by HAZMAT or has had a toxic release of unlisted chemical. 3. Area 

with history of use for HAZMAT or has had a release that has been closed or remediated. These areas may be okay for their current use; 

however, there could be potential for uncovering contamination through construction. 4. Area where a petroleum product is known to have 

been released. The case may be closed; however, there is the potential for uncovering contaminated soil through construction. 5. Facilities that 

generate, transport, treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste. 6. Facilities with above ground and underground storage tanks that store 

petroleum or hazardous substances, the vast majority store petroleum products. n/a – No records found in study area. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-29 

Figure 4.5-1: Critical Hazardous Materials Impacts – Build Alternative 3A
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-30 

Figure 4.5-1: Critical Hazardous Materials Impacts – Build Alternative 4A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-31 

Figure 4.5-1: Critical Hazardous Materials Impacts – Build Alternatives 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-32 

Figure 4.5-1: Critical Hazardous Materials Impacts – Build Alternatives 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-33 

 Spilled or leaked liquids such as oil, gasoline, and cleaning solvents 

 Herbicides 

 Fossil fuel combustion products (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]) 

 Roofing shingles (asbestos) 

 Transformers and capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

 Heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, copper, zinc, mercury, iron, cobalt, chromium, and 

molybdenum 

It is the responsibility of the owner to determine if any of the waste created meets the criteria of 

a ‘hazardous waste’ and must be managed as such. All hazardous waste or solid waste should be 

tested and removed in accordance with Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations (VSWMR) 

(9 Virginia Administrative Code [VAC] 20 - 60) and or (9 VAC 20 - 80). Asbestos, lead, or 

contaminated residues generated must be handled and disposed of in accordance with VSWMR 

or Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (VHWMR), as applicable. 

Figure 4.5-1 depicts sites along the corridor that have the greatest chance of requiring costly 

mitigation or causing project delays if a hazardous material is located within the LOD. Appendix 

O includes a list of all recorded sites within the LOD. 

4.5.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

Before the acquisition of right-of-way and construction, thorough site investigations would be 

conducted to determine whether any of the sites are actually contaminated, and, if so, the nature 

and extent of that contamination. All solid waste material resulting from clearing and grubbing, 

demolition, or other construction operations will be removed and disposed of according to 

regulations. Any additional hazardous materials discovered during construction of a Build 

Alternative or demolition of existing structures will be removed and disposed of in compliance 

with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. All necessary remediation would be 

conducted in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and would 

be coordinated with EPA, Virginia DEQ, and other federal or state agencies as necessary. 

Types of remediation could include: 

 Excavation or dredging–Removal of contamination generally to a regulated landfill, but 

also to be treated (commonly used for petroleum contamination, which is the most likely 

form of contamination to be found in a project such as this) 

 Thermal desorption–Use of a chemical to vaporize contamination which is them collected 

or destroyed in an off-gas treatment system 

 Surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation (SEAR)–Use of chemicals to decrease water 

surface tension to allow the contamination to de-absorb and be removed from the medium 

 Pump and treat–Pumping out contaminated groundwater and passing it through a 

filtration system designed to absorb contamination from the groundwater 

 Solidification and stabilization–Using a binder and soil to stop, prevent, or reduce the 

mobility of contaminants that are left in place 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-34 

 In situ oxidation–Injection of oxygen or air to promote the growth of aerobic bacteria and 

accelerate natural destruction of organic contaminants 

 Soil vapor extraction–Treatment of the off-gas volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

generated after vacuum removal of air and vapors (and VOCs) from the subsurface 

 Nanoremediation–Use of nano-sized reactive agents to degrade or immobilize 

contaminants 

 Bioremediation–Use of biological methods, such as seeding the site with specific plants, 

fungus (mycelia), or bacteria, to remove contamination 

4.6 AIR QUALITY 

This section analyzes criteria pollutant air emissions associated with the proposed Project. 

Additionally, while mobile source air toxics (MSATs) and greenhouse gases (GHGs) are not criteria 

pollutants nor subject to conformity requirements, they are also considered in this section in 

accordance with EPA guidance. Potential air quality effects of the proposed DC2RVA Project include: 

 Changes in rail-related emissions due to an increase in train operations each day and a 

change in equipment. 

 Changes in the overall regional emissions due to travelers shifting from one mode of 

transportation to another. 

 Changes in local (microscale) emissions, including changes at various crossings that could 

handle additional traffic due to nearby highway-railroad crossing closures, experience 

additional delay due to an increase in train operations, and changes in vehicular delay 

around stations due to increased traffic resulting from increased ridership. 

4.6.1 Locomotive Operations–NOx, VOC, and PM 

EPA established a comprehensive program to dramatically reduce emissions from locomotives, 

including line-haul, switch, and passenger engines (40 CFR Part 1033). The program establishes 

emission standards with applicability dependent on the date a locomotive is first manufactured. The 

first set of standards (Tier 0) applies to most locomotives originally manufactured before 2001. The most 

stringent set of standards (Tier 4) applies to locomotives manufactured in 2015 and later. Additional 

intercity passenger locomotives operating under the DC2RVA Project will, at a minimum, meet the 

emissions standards set by EPA. EPA has published expected fleet average pollutant emission rates in 

their Technical Highlights: Emission Factors for Locomotives USEPA-420-F-09-025 (EPA, 2009). 

The DC2RVA Project is subject to federal air quality general conformity regulations (40 CFR Part 

93, Subpart B). These regulations require that an evaluation of Project-generated emissions within 

the study area’s nonattainment and maintenance areas be conducted to assess potential air quality 

effects. Annual pollutant emissions were calculated for the one nonattainment area in the study 

area (i.e., the Washington, D.C.-Maryland-Virginia ozone nonattainment area). The emissions 

were calculated using the expected EPA emission rates, along with projected locomotive fuel 

consumption, which was developed as part of the rail operations modeling conducted for this 

Project (Table 4.6-1). The emissions inventory listed in Table 4.6-1 represents the expected Projectgenerated emissions under the Build Alternatives (i.e., emissions generated from the additional 

intercity passenger trains from this Project). Fuel consumption in the nonattainment and 

maintenance areas would not be substantially different among the different Build Alternatives. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-35 

Table 4.6-1: Predicted Build Alternative Project-Generated Locomotive Emissions 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Annual Emissions (tons/year) 

NOx VOC 

Washington, D.C.-Maryland-Virginia1 13.7 0.3 

De minimis (allowable) levels in the nonattainment/maintenance areas 

according to 40 CFR 51.853 

100 50 

Notes: 1. Predicted emissions listed are for those generated from the additional intercity passenger trains from this Project. 

Table 4.6-1 shows that Project-generated predicted annual pollutant emissions, from the 

Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) trains added by this Project, in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas, are all below general conformity de minimis threshold values. Pursuant to the 

General Conformity Rule, EPA considers project-generated emissions below these de minimis

values to be minimal. Such projects do not require formal conformity determinations. These 

numbers are considered conservatively high because they do not account for any reduction in 

automobile emissions related to travelers diverting from auto to rail travel. 

4.6.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics 

Currently, FRA does not have any guidelines related to MSAT analysis, including hot-spot 

analyses. A hot-spot analysis is known as a “microscale” analysis because it focuses on a relatively 

small geographic area. In the absence of FRA MSAT guidelines, regional MSAT effects associated 

with the Project are discussed qualitatively. The qualitative assessment presented below is based 

on the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Interim Guidance Update on Air Toxic Analysis 

in NEPA Documents, released December 6, 2012, and in part from a study conducted by FHWA 

entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions among Transportation Project 

Alternatives (FHWA, 2010). It is provided as a basis for identifying and comparing the potential 

differences in MSAT emissions, if any, among the alternatives. 

4.6.2.1 Regional MSAT Effects 

MSAT emissions would be similar among the Build Alternatives because the regional change in 

vehicle emissions would be similar. This analysis qualitatively compares the Build Alternatives 

to the No Build Alternative. In 2045, the Build Alternatives are projected to have up to 1.12 million 

more rail passenger trips annually (compared to the No Build Alternative). By shifting this travel 

to rail, it is expected that up to 2,700 vehicles per day (VPD) and 322,000 vehicle miles would be 

removed from the parallel roads of I-95 and U.S. Route 1 in the 123-mile Project corridor in the 

year 2045. Assuming an average fuel efficiency of 22 miles per gallon, this equates to a reduction 

of approximately 5.3 million gallons of fuel per year. In comparison, the additional intercity 

passenger trains that would operate as a result of this project are estimated to consume 

approximately 2.3 million gallons of fuel per year. Therefore, overall fuel consumption would be 

reduced in the DC2RVA corridor. The Build Alternatives would also result in a reduction in 

passenger miles of travel by air and bus, which could ultimately lead to a reduction in vehicle 

miles from these two modes; however, the ridership forecasting completed for this Project does 

not include projections related to reduced vehicle trips for air or bus travel. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-36 

Beginning in 2025, through 2045, and beyond, the Build Alternatives would decrease regional 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and MSAT emissions compared to the No Build Alternative. The 

availability of improved intercity passenger rail service would reduce the number of vehicle trips 

on a regional basis. Because the Build Alternatives would not substantially change the regional 

traffic mix, the amount of MSATs emitted from highways and other roadways within the study 

area would be proportional to the VMT. Because the regional VMT estimated for the Build 

Alternatives would be less than the No Build Alternative in 2045, MSAT emissions from regional 

vehicle traffic would be less for the Build Alternatives compared to the No Build Alternative in 

2045. Regardless of the Build Alternatives, emissions would also likely be lower than present levels 

in 2045 because of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual priority 

MSAT emissions by 83 percent between 2010 and 2050 even if VMT increases by 102 percent over 

that same period. 

Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, 

VMT growth rates, and local control measures; however, the magnitude of the EPA-projected 

reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study 

area are likely to be lower in nearly all cases. Further information on highway vehicle MSATs is 

included in Appendix T. 

4.6.2.2 Local MSAT Effects 

The potential MSAT emission sources directly related to Project operation would be from trains 

operating along the DC2RVA corridor, vehicles used at maintenance facilities, passenger vehicles 

traveling to and from the train stations, and passenger vehicles delayed at grade crossings. 

Localized increases in MSAT emissions would occur as a result of all of these activities. 

DRPT expects that the differences in local MSAT effects amongst the Build Alternatives would be 

minor. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternative 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would shift freight trains and some intercity passenger trains 

outside of those towns, through less populated areas. While there would be fewer local MSAT 

emissions through town under the bypass alternatives, there would be greater local MSAT 

emissions along the bypasses themselves. 

In Ashland, Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would relocate the 

rail passenger station south of town in a less populated area. Passengers driving to and from the 

new station would result in a reduction in local MSAT emissions in downtown Ashland, and an 

increase in local MSAT emissions in the area surrounding the Ashcake Station. 

In Richmond, local MSAT emissions will vary based on the route used (i.e., A-Line or S-Line) and 

station location. Nonetheless, DRPT does not anticipate a noticeable difference in local MSAT 

emissions between the Build Alternatives. 

The localized increases in MSAT emissions would likely be most pronounced at maintenance 

facilities, where in-yard diesel-fueled switch locomotives would be used to pull in or pull out the 

trainsets for maintenance. The only maintenance facility along the DC2RVA corridor is proposed 

at Brown Street, north of Main Street Station in Richmond. Local MSAT emissions around this 

maintenance facility would increase with additional DC2RVA trains. There is no residential 

development or other sensitive land uses directly adjacent to the proposed maintenance facility. 

Therefore, DRPT expects any local MSAT effects to be minor. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-37 

Localized Project-related emissions would be substantially reduced due to implementation of 

EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations. The Build Alternatives would decrease regional MSAT 

emissions compared to the No Build Alternative. 

4.6.3 Highway Vehicle Operations–CO 

Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are associated with large volumes of slow-moving traffic, such as 

highly congested intersections. Areas experiencing high levels of CO are referred to as CO “hot spots.” 

The purpose of a CO hot-spot analysis is to determine if CO emissions generated by a proposed project 

would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the air quality standard for CO as promulgated by EPA. 

The Build Alternatives would result in an increase in vehicular delay at grade crossings because 

more trains would be operating over these crossings; however, given the relatively short length 

and rapid passages of intercity passenger trains and modest predicted increases in the rates of 

train service, it is unlikely that these delays would result in any substantial effect on air quality 

levels. Additionally, at the locations where highway-rail grade separations are proposed, vehicles 

would no longer have to stop to wait for trains to pass, and CO emissions would be reduced. 

Proposed grade separation locations are identified in Section 4.15.2. 

Additionally, the Build Alternatives are anticipated to increase vehicular traffic near station 

locations; however, while the Project would enhance passenger train travel speeds over an 

extended route, the frequency of service would be relatively modest. This would tend to reduce 

the temporal concentration of motor vehicles associated with trips to and from train stations along 

the DC2RVA corridor. Many stations also have direct connections to local and regional transit. 

Particularly, all intercity passenger rail stations in Northern Virginia share service with Virginia 

Railway Express (VRE). Other stations in Northern Virginia have convenient or direct connection 

to the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA), including Franconia-Springfield, 

Alexandria, Crystal City, L’Enfant Plaza, and Washington Union Station. In Richmond, Main 

Street Station has multiple local and regional bus services, and the Greater Richmond Transit 

Company (GRTC) has plans for a 7.6-mile bus rapid transit (BRT) system along Broad Street and 

Main Street. These multimodal connections can help offset vehicular traffic at these stations. 

The federal ambient air quality standards for CO are 35 parts per million (ppm) (1-hour) and 9 

ppm (8-hour). DRPT ran a computer model to determine the CO concentrations at the worst-case 

grade crossings along the DC2RVA corridor. DRPT selected these locations because the locations 

have the highest projected amount of traffic and/or the greatest amount of delay. Based on traffic 

operations analysis conducted for this Project (see Section 4.15), the following worst-case traffic 

locations were selected: 

 England Street/Thompson Street–where all intercity passenger and freight train traffic 

would continue to operate through town, which would contribute to the worst-case traffic 

conditions in Ashland (Build Alternatives 5A and 5B) 

 Jahnke Road–where most intercity passenger and freight train traffic would use the CSXT 

A-Line between ACCA Yard and Centralia, which would contribute to the worst-case traffic 

conditions on the A-Line in Richmond (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) 

 Hermitage Road–where most intercity passenger train traffic would use all or a portion 

of the CSXT S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia, which would contribute to 

the worst-case traffic conditions on the S-Line in Richmond (Build Alternatives 6C, 6D, 

6F, and 6G) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-38 

The CO hot-spot analysis compared the 2015 Existing (Base), 2025 Interim (Opening) Build and 

No Build, and 2045 Design Year Build and No Build scenarios. DRPT used CAL3QHC, which is 

a standard EPA dispersion model, to estimate CO concentrations. Model input parameters 

included MOVES2014 emissions factors, CO background levels, persistence factors, peak-hour 

volumes, free-flow speeds, and estimated gate down time. Simulated meteorological conditions 

designed to yield worst-case concentrations were used in the analysis. 

The results of the analyses indicated that the 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations at the locations analyzed 

in any scenario were well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Based on these 

results, no mitigation is required, and no additional analysis is recommended (Table 4.6-2). 

Table 4.6-2: Predicted CO Concentrations (including background) 

Worst-Case 

Intersection/Crossing 

Analysis Scenario 

2015 Existing 2025 No Build 2025 Build 2045 No Build 2045 Build 

1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 

England Street/Thompson Street 4.2 2.9 3.4 2.4 3.6 2.5 3.1 2.2 3.2 2.2 

Jahnke Road 4.1 2.9 3.3 2.3 3.3 2.3 2.9 2.0 2.9 2.0 

Hermitage Road 3.6 2.5 2.9 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.4 1.7 2.4 1.7 

Note: NAAQS: 35 ppm (1-hour) and 9 ppm (8-hour). 

4.6.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary GHG associated with the combustion of transportation fuels, 

accounting for more than 95 percent of transportation GHG emissions based on global warming 

potential. CO2 is emitted in direct proportion to fuel consumption, with different emission levels 

associated with different fuel types. Other notable GHGs include methane (CH4) and nitrous 

oxide (N2O), which together account for 2 percent of transportation GHG emissions, and 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which comprise approximately 3 percent of transportation GHG 

emissions. N2O and CH4 are not directly related to fuel consumption, but instead are dependent 

on engine operating conditions (i.e., vehicle speeds) and emissions control technologies. HFCs 

are also emitted from vehicle air conditioners and refrigeration used in some freight shipments; 

these emissions do not come from the tailpipe and depend on factors such as the age of the vehicle 

and how often air conditioners are used. Given the relatively small percentage of these gases in 

comparison to CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFC, emissions were not calculated for this Project. 

The projected change in 2045 CO2 emissions for the Build Alternatives relative to the No Build 

Alternative is shown in Table 4.6-3 by mode of passenger travel. These emission values were 

derived from mass emission rates per passenger mile published in a report prepared for the 

American Bus Association (Bradley, 2014) and projected changes in annual passenger miles of 

travel from Table 4.8-1 of this Draft EIS. 

Increases in CO2 emissions associated with additional intercity passenger rail service are expected 

to be more than offset by reductions in CO2 emissions due to reduced use of other transportation 

modes, as shown in Table 4.6-3. The results in Table 4.6-3 are presented by the Build Alternatives 

in Richmond but reflect the projected changes through the entire DC2RVA corridor. DRPT 

derived the CO2 emissions from the passenger ridership estimates for the entire DC2RVA 

corridor. The ridership forecasts for the Build Alternatives only differ based on which station 

option is used in Richmond. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-39 

Table 4.6-3: Change in Projected CO2 Emissions in the DC2RVA Corridor by Mode Compared 

to the No Build Alternative (tons per year)–Year 2045 

Build Alternative Rail Automobile Bus Air Total 

6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 64,552 -43,206 -10,527 -17,516 -6,696 

6B–A-Line (Boulevard Station Only, 

A-Line) 

58,536 -39,281 -9,715 -15,543 -6,003 

6B–S-Line (Boulevard Station Only, 

S-Line) 

58,536 -39,281 -9,715 -15,543 -6,003 

6C (Broad Street Station Only) 56,711 -37,568 -9,310 -15,496 -5,663 

6D (Main Street Station Only) 58,975 -39,752 -9,677 -15,493 -5,947 

6E (Split Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

60,496 -40,475 -9,693 -16,379 -6,051 

6F (Full Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

60,155 -41,187 -9,854 -15,632 -6,518 

6G (Shared Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

60,597 -41,658 -9,995 -15,813 -6,869 

Note: Results in this table are for the entire DC2RVA corridor. The results for the entire DC2RVA corridor only differ by which Build Alternative 

station option is considered in Richmond. 

4.6.5 Construction Effects 

Demolition and construction activities can result in short-term increases in fugitive dust and equipmentrelated particulate emissions in and around the study area. (Equipment-related particulate emissions 

can be minimized if the equipment is well maintained.) The potential air quality effects would be shortterm, occurring only while demolition and construction work is in progress and local conditions are 

appropriate. The potential for fugitive dust emissions typically is associated with building demolition, 

ground clearing, site preparation, grading, stockpiling of materials, onsite movement of equipment, and 

transportation of materials. The potential is greatest during dry periods, periods of intense construction 

activity, and high wind conditions. There is not enough information regarding construction activity, 

equipment, and duration to estimate emissions from construction in this Draft EIS. If required, DRPT 

will perform this analysis during final design to demonstrate general conformity. DRPT will also 

identify the appropriate BMPs to minimize air quality effects during construction. 

GHG emissions would also be generated during the construction phase of the program; however, 

these emissions are likely to be relatively minor given the nature and size of the program and the 

limited duration of the construction activities. 

4.6.6 Conclusion 

The Project-generated net increases in predicted annual pollutant emissions, from new SEHSR 

passenger service, in nonattainment areas would all be below general conformity de minimis

threshold values. Pursuant to the General Conformity Rule, EPA considers project-generated 

emissions below these de minimis values to be minimal. Such projects do not require formal 

conformity determinations. With regard to GHG emissions, the Build Alternatives would reduce 

CO2 emissions versus the No Build Alternative. As a result, DRPT anticipates that the DC2RVA 

Project will not result in significant adverse effects to public health related to air pollutants and 

air toxics or contributions to GHG emissions. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-40 

4.6.7 Mitigation 

DRPT will identify the appropriate BMPs to minimize air quality effects during construction. Air 

quality mitigation is discussed in Section 4.19.2.3 in the Construction Impacts section. 

4.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

This section describes potential Project-related noise and vibration effects and identifies mitigation 

measures to offset Project-related impacts. These analyses only evaluated noise and vibration from 

the additional intercity passenger trains proposed under this project, except where noted. 

Noise and vibration effects were assessed based on the methods and criteria included in FRA’s High 

Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual (September 

2012) for sections of the study corridor where passenger train speeds can reach 90 miles per hour 

(mph). On sections where all train speeds are below 90 mph, this assessment used the noise and 

vibration impact assessment methods published in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006) manual per FRA guidance. The assessment 

addresses both operational and construction effects from the proposed alternatives. 

The noise and vibration study area consists of lands adjacent to the project corridor; it was not 

defined by the FTA/FRA screening methods. Rather, the noise and vibration analyses 

conservatively determined the distances at which noise and vibration impacts would no longer 

occur. Noise and vibration-sensitive land uses within the study area were categorized for analysis 

purposes according to FRA and FTA land use categories. Land use was identified from GIS 

databases, digital aerial photographs, field surveys, and information on planned development 

from local planning departments where publicly available and reasonably obtainable. 

4.7.1 Noise 

4.7.1.1 Noise Impact Criteria 

According to FRA and FTA, noise-sensitive land uses are divided into one of three categories. 

 Category 1: Land where quiet is an essential element (e.g., amphitheaters and concert 

pavilions). This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land 

uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic 

Landmarks (NHLs) with significant outdoor use. 

 Category 2: Residences and buildings where people sleep. This category includes homes, 

hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost 

importance. 

 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category 

includes schools, libraries, and churches where it is important to avoid interference with 

such activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Buildings 

with interior spaces where quiet is important, such as medical offices, conference rooms, 

recording studios, and concert halls, fall into this category. Places for meditation or study 

associated with cemeteries, monuments, and museums. Certain historical sites, parks, and 

recreational facilities are also included. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-41 

Category 1 and 3 receptors are evaluated using the equivalent-average sound level (Leq) from the 

noisiest hour of train-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity. The Leq represents a constant 

sound that, over the hour, has the same acoustic energy as the time-varying signal. Category 2 

receptors are evaluated using the day-night sound level (Ldn), because Category 2 receptors are 

sensitive to noise during all hours of the 24-hour day. The Ldn describes a receiver’s cumulative noise 

exposure from all events over a full 24 hours, with events between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. penalized 

by adding an additional 10 decibels (dB) to account for greater nighttime sensitivity to noise. 

This analysis followed the FTA/FRA noise impact assessment methodology in which 

measurements of existing noise levels are used to determine the noise impact threshold. Projectrelated noise is then calculated using FTA and FRA methods, and the resulting noise levels are 

compared with the FTA/FRA noise impact criteria to determine if noise impacts are expected to 

occur. 

Figure 4.7-1 from the FTA guidance manual shows the noise impact criteria used by both FTA 

and FRA, which are based on the land use category and the existing noise exposure in the area. 

No impact indicates Project noise levels are unlikely to cause annoyance. A moderate noise 

impact is a noise level increase that is noticeable to most people, yet generally not enough to cause 

adverse reactions. A severe noise impact is a noise level increase that could cause annoyance to a 

significant percentage of people. FTA guidance requires consideration and adoption of noise 

mitigation measures for moderate and severe noise impacts when noise mitigation is feasible and 

reasonable. 

Figure 4.7-1: FTA/FRA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-42 

4.7.1.2 Noise Prediction Methodology 

Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is an acoustical descriptor that contains all acoustical energy associated 

with a single event such as the passby of a locomotive, railcar, or a locomotive horn use event. SEL 

values are used as the noise emissions terms in the train noise models; they are expressed in units of 

dBA (A-weighted decibel). Actual noise levels from passenger trains between Poughkeepsie and 

Albany, New York (the Empire Line) that are similar to the trains proposed on this Project were 

measured to calculate projected noise levels on the DC2RVA corridor. Noise measurements were 

performed in areas where Empire Line trains were expected to reach speeds of 90 mph. Due to track 

maintenance and other unknown factors, none of the Empire Line trains were traveling at or above 

90 mph during measurements of passby noise; therefore, SEL values measured along the Empire Line 

were used to calculate noise from all other passenger trains (at speeds below 90 mph). The SEL values 

for freight locomotives and railcars were obtained from FRA’s CREATE Noise and Vibration Assessment 

Manual (FRA, 2013). The SEL for CSXT locomotive horns was obtained from the Final EIS for the 

Acquisition of Conrail by Norfolk Southern Railroad and CSX Railroad (United States Surface 

Transportation Board, 1998). Noise from freight trains on the proposed bypasses and passenger trains 

traveling at speeds below 90 mph were modeled using FTA’s general noise assessment methods. SEL 

values for proposed intercity passenger trains traveling at 90 mph were obtained from Appendix E 

of the FRA guidance manual. This analysis used the maximum allowable speed on each rail section 

to calculate train noise. Characteristics of the SEHSR passenger trains that were used in the noise 

analysis are shown in Table 4.7-1. Figure 2.2-3 in Chapter 2 of this Draft EIS provides additional 

information about the proposed increases in intercity passenger rail service in the DC2RVA corridor. 

Table 4.7-1: Intercity Passenger Train Characteristics used in the Noise Assessment

Characteristics Proposed DC2RVA Train 

Train speed (mph)1 90 

Train Length (feet) 665 

Number of locomotives per train 2 

Number of railcars per train 8 

Throttle setting 8 

Locomotive length (feet) 70 

Length of train railcars (feet) 85 

Notes: 1. Maximum train speed varies by rail section; the maximum allowable speed per section was modeled. 

Growth in the passenger (non-SEHSR) and freight trains that currently use the corridor will occur 

independently from the proposed Project; therefore, the noise analysis only modeled the proposed 

additional intercity passenger trains on most rail sections in the study area. The exceptions to this 

are the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 

5C and 5C–Ashcake). In these areas, the distribution of freight and/or passenger (non-SEHSR) 

trains that currently use the corridor may change and was, therefore, modeled. 

The proposed bypasses in Fredericksburg and Ashland are expected to have unique combinations 

of freight and intercity passenger trains and were modeled based on the way trains are proposed 

to use the bypasses. In Fredericksburg, only freight trains are expected to use the proposed bypass 

alignment (Build Alternative 3C); therefore, noise from freight trains was evaluated on that bypass 

alignment. The proposed additional intercity passenger trains that will bypass downtown 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-43 

Fredericksburg were also modeled on the existing alignment under the Fredericksburg Bypass 

alternative. In Ashland, under the bypass alternatives (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), 

freight trains and intercity passenger trains that do not stop in Ashland are expected to use the 

bypass alignment while other passenger trains would use the existing alignment. This results in a 

net reduction in train noise on the existing alignment and is considered a benefit of the proposed 

Project. Noise from freight trains was not evaluated in areas other than on the proposed bypass 

alignments because freight train traffic would continue to operate and expand on the existing 

corridor in the Build Alternatives as it would in the No Build Alternative. 

Trains operate on five different rail sections in each of the eight Richmond Build Alternatives. In 

addition to operating on different sections, sometimes passenger train length increases under 

different Richmond alternatives; therefore, each alternative was evaluated individually, and 

noise from all trains on all five sections was calculated for each alternative. Noise from freight 

trains was not included in the evaluation of Project-related noise under each Richmond 

alternative because freight trains currently operate on those lines (unlike the proposed bypass 

alternatives), and changes in freight train volume and size will occur based on market forces and 

in a manner that is unrelated to the proposed Project. 

Table 4.7-2 shows other train characteristics used to evaluate noise from trains on the proposed 

bypasses in Fredericksburg (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–

Ashcake) and on the eight Richmond Build Alternatives. 

Table 4.7-2: Characteristics of Existing Trains Analyzed in the Noise Assessment

Amtrak 

Auto Train 

Amtrak 

Long 

Distance 

Amtrak 

Interstate 

Corridor 

Carolinian 

Interstate 

Corridor 

(SEHSR) 

and 

Regional 

(Virginia 

and SEHSR) 

Freight 

Train1

SEL for locomotive at 50 feet2, 3 97 97 97 97 974

SEL for railcar at 50 feet2, 3 82 82 82 82 1004

SEL for locomotive horn at 50 feet2, 3 108 108 108 108 1105

Maximum train speed (mph)6 90 90 90 90 607

Train length (feet) 4390 1075 750 992 7083 

Number of locomotives per train 2 2 1 2 2 

Number of railcars per train 50 11 8 10 738

Throttle setting 8 8 8 8 8 

Locomotive length (feet) 70 70 70 70 74 

Length of train railcars (feet) 85 85 85 85 95 

Notes: 1. Freight trains were only modeled on the proposed bypasses. 2. Source: HDR Engineering, Inc. 3. SEL for 90 mph trains from FRA 

(September 2012). 4. Source: FRA CREATE. 5. Source: United States Surface Transportation Board, 1998. 6. Varies by rail section; the maximum 

allowable speed per section was modeled. 7. Maximum freight train speed is 60 mph. 8. Based on an average of cars on intermodal trains and coal

and merchandise trains. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-44 

Under FRA safety rules, locomotive horns are required to be used at public at-grade crossings. 

CSXT operating rules also require locomotive horns to be used when trains: 

 Approach public crossings 

 Approach tunnels, yards, or locations where railroad employees may be working 

 Approach roadway workers 

 Approach standing trains 

 Approach passenger stations 

 When warning people or animals near the track 

This analysis utilized FRA methods to evaluate locomotive horn noise at public at-grade 

crossings, yards, and near passenger stations. FRA has studied locomotive horn noise and had 

determined that horn noise contours exhibit the general cone-like shape shown in Figure 4.7-2. 

Locomotive horn use increases as trains approach the crossing, and therefore, the noise contour 

flares outward at the crossing. The locomotive horn contours created during this noise analysis 

exhibit a similar shape; refer to the noise contour figures in Noise and Vibration Technical Report

(Appendix P). 

Figure 4.7-2: FRA Sample Train Noise Contour 

4.7.1.3 Predicted Noise Levels 

Using the information in Tables 4.7-1 and 4.7-2, train noise levels under the Build Alternatives 

were calculated throughout the study area. These calculations accounted for project-related 

wayside noise (locomotive and wheel-rail noise) and locomotive horn use at public at-grade 

crossings. Existing locomotive horn use is incorporated into the noise analysis via the existing 

noise measurements. FRA locomotive horn use rules do not require locomotive horn use at 

private at-grade crossings. The analysis assumed that freight trains would use the Fredericksburg 

Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), and the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) 

would be used by freight trains and passenger trains that do not stop in Ashland. Analysis results 

were used to determine the distance from the tracks at which train noise levels equal the noise 

impact thresholds for moderate and severe noise impacts at Category 1, 2, and 3 land uses. Noise 

impacts are identified at the noise-sensitive land uses within those distances to the track. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-45 

4.7.1.4 Noise Impact Assessment 

This section presents the results of the assessment of Project-related noise during operation and 

construction. The Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Appendix P) includes figures that show the 

noise impact contours. 

Operational Noise Impacts 

The noise impact assessment results are presented in Table 4.7-3; this includes both locomotive 

horn and wayside horn noise. The values shown in the table represent the number of noisesensitive land use receptors projected to experience noise impacts under the Build Alternatives. 

Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 refer to land use categories evaluated in the noise 

assessment, as explained previously. The noise analysis did not account for terrain or buildings 

that block train noise from reaching noise-sensitive parcels; therefore, the results are considered 

to be conservatively high, over-estimating the number of likely train noise impacts. 

The proposed project has potential to reduce existing horn noise through new grade separations and 

crossing closures. Closing an at-grade crossing reduces locomotive horn noise. Adding new at-grade 

crossings where locomotive horns must be used increases outdoor noise levels near the new crossing. 

Section 4.15.2 provides the recommended grade crossing treatments for all of the alternatives. 

Increases in intercity passenger trains results in a corresponding increase in locomotive horn use 

in most portions of the project corridor. Exceptions to this include the proposed bypasses of 

Fredericksburg (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) 

where train volumes will decrease on the exising alignment. Horn noise impacts are 

distinguishable from wayside noise impacts on the noise impact contour figures shown in the 

Noise and Vibration Technical Report, Appendix P. 

Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C (Arlington). DRPT does not anticipate that Build Alternatives 

1A, 1B, and 1C will cause any noise impacts. 

Build Alternative 2A (Northern Virginia). Build Alternative 2A would result in noise impacts at 

775 sensitive receptors. The most severe impacts generally occur at residences located 

immediately adjacent to the DC2RVA corridor, including a trailer park just south of Woodbridge 

Station and several other residential neighborhoods in Prince William County. 

Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C (Fredericksburg). Build Alternatives 3A and 3B that pass 

through town would impact 75 and 76 sensitive receptors, respectively. Projected noise impacts 

along the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) are substantially higher due to noise from 

freight trains on the bypass, which would run through areas that currently have no train traffic. 

Build Alternative 4A (Central Virginia). Build Alternative 4A is projected to cause noise impacts 

at 70 sensitive receptors. 

Build Alternatives 5A through 5D (Ashland). Projected noise impacts are similar among Build 

Alternatives that pass through town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–

Ashcake), ranging from 154 to 159 sensitive receptors. The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C 

and 5C–Ashcake), would impact 329 sensitive receptors. The higher number of impacts is due to 

the addition of freight train noise along the proposed bypass, which runs through areas that do not 

have trains under existing conditions. 

One of the severe Category 3 impacts is at the Ashland Library, located adjacent to the tracks; 

however, the proximity of the nearby station means that intercity passenger and freight trains 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-46 

would actually be traveling slower than modeled. This is one example where use of the highest 

train speed on each section results in conservatively high analysis results. 

The impacts identified with the Ashland area alternatives assume that passenger trains would 

operate at 90 mph through the Town of Ashland. In reality, the trains would slow down through 

town, even if they are not stopping at the station. Any reduction in speed would reduce the noise 

impacts from the Project. As a result, the noise analysis results are conservative. 

Build Alternatives 6A through 6G (Richmond). Projected noise impacts through Richmond 

range from 313 to 439 sensitive receptors under Build Alternatives 6A through 6G. 

Table 4.7-3: Operational Noise Impact Summary by Alternative 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Operational Noise Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A 0 0 670 99 6 0 775 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A 0 0 66 8 1 0 75 

3B 0 0 67 8 1 0 76 

3C 2 1 2,392 1,524 8 5 3,932 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A 0 0 51 18 1 0 70 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 0 0 135 14 1 4 154 

5A–Ashcake 0 0 135 14 1 4 154 

5B 1 0 133 20 1 4 159 

5B–Ashcake 1 0 133 20 1 4 159 

5C 0 0 272 51 2 4 329 

5C–Ashcake 0 0 272 51 2 4 329 

5D–Ashcake 1 0 135 18 1 4 159 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A 0 0 366 8 6 0 380 

6B–A-Line 0 0 386 9 6 0 401 

6B–S-Line 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 

6C 0 0 387 9 7 0 403 

6D 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 

6E 0 0 379 9 6 0 394 

6F 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 

6G 1 0 298 10 4 0 313 

The noise impact locations are shown in the Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Appendix P). 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-47 

Construction Noise Impacts 

Construction of the Build Alternatives would result in a temporary increase in noise levels. 

Equipment used to move soil and other earthen materials is often the loudest construction noise 

source. FTA and FRA both recommend construction noise limits of 90 dBA (daytime) and 80 dBA 

(nighttime) on a 1-hour Leq basis in residential areas. 

Typical equipment used for different phases of railroad construction with typical noise levels, 

quantities, and estimated utilizations for each type of equipment used are presented in Table 4.7-4. 

The table shows the calculated construction noise sound pressure levels (SPL) at different distances. 

These are estimates of construction noise at different distances from the center of a construction site. 

Table 4.7-4: Estimated Construction Equipment Noise Levels 

Construction Phase Equipment 

NumberHours/da

y

Utilization SWL/unit Total SWL 

SPL (dBA) at 

distance (feet) 

100 500 1,000 

Clearing Off-Highway Trucks 4 6 50% 124 127 108 94 88 

Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 67% 122 125 106 92 86 

Rubber Tired Loaders 2 6 50% 121 121 102 88 82 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 5 42% 118 119 100 86 80 

Trenchers 2 4 33% 117 115 96 82 76 

Utility Relocation Cranes 1 6 50% 121 118 100 86 80 

Dumper/Tender 2 4 33% 110 108 89 75 69 

Off-Highway Trucks 2 6 50% 124 124 105 91 85 

Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 67% 122 125 106 92 86 

Rubber Tired Loaders 2 6 50% 121 121 102 88 82 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 5 42% 118 119 100 86 80 

Trenchers 2 6 50% 117 117 98 84 78 

Welders 3 6 50% 114 116 97 83 77 

Earthwork Excavators 2 8 67% 120 121 102 88 82 

Graders 1 8 67% 120 118 100 86 80 

Off-Highway Trucks 4 8 67% 124 128 109 95 89 

Off-Highway Trucks 1 4 33% 123 118 100 86 80 

Rollers 2 6 50% 117 117 98 84 78 

Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 67% 122 120 101 87 81 

Rubber Tired Loaders 2 6 50% 121 121 102 88 82 

Scrapers 2 8 67% 123 125 106 92 86 

Signal Boards 3 8 67% 106 109 90 76 70 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 6 50% 118 119 101 87 81 

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-48 

Table 4.7-4: Estimated Construction Equipment Noise Levels 

Construction Phase Equipment 

NumberHours/da

y

Utilization SWL/unit Total SWL 

SPL (dBA) at 

distance (feet) 

100 500 1,000 

Bridge Construction for 

Overpasses 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Excavators 2 8 67% 120 121 102 88 82 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Graders 1 8 67% 120 118 100 86 80 

Impact Pile Driver 1 6 50 n/a n/a 95 81 75 

Pavers 2 8 67% 119 120 101 87 81 

Paving Equipment 2 8 67% 119 120 101 87 81 

Rollers 2 8 67% 117 118 99 85 79 

Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 67% 122 120 101 87 81 

Scrapers 2 8 67% 123 125 106 92 86 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

Retaining Walls Excavators 2 8 67% 120 121 102 88 82 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Graders 1 8 67% 120 118 100 86 80 

Impact Pile Driver 1 6 50 n/a n/a 95 81 75 

Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 67% 122 120 101 87 81 

Rubber Tired Loaders 2 7 58% 121 121 103 89 83 

Scrapers 2 8 67% 123 125 106 92 86 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 58% 118 120 101 87 81 

Signals Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

 Continued
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-49 

Table 4.7-4: Estimated Construction Equipment Noise Levels 

Construction Phase Equipment 

NumberHours/da

y

Utilization SWL/unit Total SWL 

SPL (dBA) at 

distance (feet) 

100 500 1,000 

Track Installation Air Compressors 1 6 50% 117 114 95 81 75 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Track Laying Machine 1 8 67% 129 128 109 95 89 

Track Tamper 1 8 67% 121 119 100 86 80 

Track Stabilizer 1 8 67% 126 124 106 92 86 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

Demolish Existing Bridge Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 67% 117 115 96 82 76 

Excavators 2 8 67% 120 121 102 88 82 

Graders 1 8 67% 120 118 100 86 80 

Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 67% 122 120 101 87 81 

Scrapers 2 8 67% 123 125 106 92 86 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Signal Work Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

Install Track and Subballast 

over Bridge 

Air Compressors 1 6 50% 117 114 95 81 75 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Track Laying Machine 1 8 67% 129 128 109 95 89 

Track Tamper 1 8 67% 121 119 100 86 80 

Track Stabilizer 1 8 67% 126 124 106 92 86 

Ballast Regulator 1 8 67% 119 118 99 85 79 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

Final Cut-Over and Removal 

of Turnouts 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 58% 118 120 101 87 81 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-50 

The results presented in Table 4.7-4 conservatively overestimate actual expected construction noise 

levels by assuming that all equipment (i.e., all dump trucks or all pickup trucks) operate at the same 

location. Typically, construction equipment is spread throughout the construction work zone. Given 

the linear nature of the Project and relatively confined width of the railroad right-of-way, it is 

reasonable to assume that all equipment would not operate next to each other in the same (stationary) 

location for 1 hour. On this basis, construction noise levels in Table 4.7-4 somewhat overestimate noise 

levels for construction phases that would use more than one piece of equipment at a particular 

location. In all other cases, the results are assumed to be within 3 dBA of likely construction noise 

levels, if the equipment has been properly maintained and the mufflers are in good condition. 

Construction noise analysis results shown in Table 4.7-4 indicate the total combined noise for all 

equipment types and construction phases never exceeds the FTA/FRA recommended limit of a 

1-hour Leq of 90 dBA at 200 feet, even using a conservative approach to the evaluation. Because 

the conservatively calculated construction noise is not anticipated to exceed 90 dBA at 200 feet, 

construction noise is not expected to be adverse in most locations; however, DRPT will ensure 

that construction noise mitigation measures will be evaluated when an analysis of construction 

noise based on the actual construction plan can be completed. At the preliminary design phase, 

construction noise mitigation measures are not recommended due to the overly conservative 

nature of these calculation results. 

FRA and FTA do not have standardized criteria for construction; however, FTA suggests 

reasonable criteria that can be used for assessment purposes. The criteria for residential land uses 

are 1-hour Leq of 90 dBA during the day and 80 dBA during the night; therefore, it would be 

prudent to limit construction to daytime hours whenever feasible. 

4.7.1.5 Noise Mitigation Measures 

Potential noise mitigation measures are broadly categorized as applied at the source, in the pathway 

(the path that sound travels), or at the receiver. The source of most train noise is the interaction of steel 

wheels and the steel rail; this is called wayside noise. In addition to wayside noise, railcars (particularly, 

freight cars) sometimes rattle and produce noticeable amounts of noise. Locomotives also emit noise 

from the engine casing and from the cooling and exhaust vents. Maintaining wheels and rails is an 

effective way to manage and reduce wayside noise. Use of continuously welded rail (CWR or rail with 

no joints) also minimizes wayside noise (joints and gaps in the rail produce noise when trains roll over 

them). As part of the Build Alternatives, DRPT assumes that all track will be CWR. 

Locomotive horns are another loud source of train noise; however, their use is mostly limited to 

at-grade crossings and other areas required by CSXT operating rules where they are used to warn 

people that trains are approaching. Locomotive horn use at public at-grade crossings is required 

under FRA safety regulations. FRA does not require locomotive horn use at private at-grade 

crossings. Grade crossing closure, grade separations, and installation of wayside horns 

(stationary horns located where trains cross public at-grade crossings, whose use eliminates the 

use of locomotive horns) are potential measures to mitigate locomotive horn use. These have been 

evaluated and are incorporated into the Project to the extent deemed reasonable and appropriate 

within the design, operating, and financial constraints of the Project. FRA regulations also allow 

the creation of quiet zones, where locomotive horn use at public at-grade crossings is not required 

due to the installation of supplemental safety measures. Under those regulations, municipalities 

can coordinate the design and development of quiet zones. Section 4.15.2.2 (Relevance of Build 

Alternatives on Quiet Zones) provides additional information on quiet zones. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-51 

Noise barriers, while not commonly used on rail projects, can block train noise and reduce noise levels 

in areas behind them. To be effective, noise barriers must block the line of sight between the noise 

source and the receiver. Raising the height of the noise barrier above that line of sight increases the 

amount of noise reduction the noise barrier provides, but the cost of a noise barrier is directly related 

to the size of the noise barrier. Cost effectiveness is sometimes used to evaluate whether the noise 

reduction provided by a noise barrier justifies the expense of designing, constructing, and 

maintaining the barrier. This type of evaluation also considers the number of noise-sensitive land uses 

expected to experience a noise reduction due to the noise barrier. FRA does not have criteria for 

evaluating cost effectiveness of noise barriers. VDOT does, however, and their criteria could be useful 

for evaluating the cost effectiveness of noise barriers on this Project. At this early phase of Project 

development (Draft EIS and preliminary design), it is premature to discuss specific details of potential 

noise mitigation options before a recommended Preferred Alternative is selected. 

Receiver-based mitigation is rarely implemented on rail projects because it is not cost effective to 

treat multiple individual locations across large areas. 

Noise mitigation during construction is discussed in Section 4.19.2.4 in the Construction Impacts 

section. 

4.7.2 Vibration 

This section describes potential Project-related vibration effects and identifies mitigation 

measures to offset projected impacts. Vibration effects were assessed based on the methods and 

criteria included in FRA’s High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

guidance manual (September 2012) as well as those included in FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration 

Impact Assessment (May 2006) manual, where applicable. 

4.7.2.1 Vibration Impact Criteria 

The FRA and FTA vibration impact criteria are identical and are used to predict future vibration 

impacts from train operations. There are separate criteria for both ground-borne vibration (GBV) 

and ground-borne noise (GBN). GBN is a rumble sound created by GBV and is often masked by 

airborne-noise; therefore, GBN criteria are primarily applied to subway operations in which 

airborne noise is negligible. The basis for evaluating rail vibration impact thresholds is the highest 

expected root mean square (RMS) vibration levels for repeated vibration events from the same 

source. As presented in Table 4.7-5, the thresholds are differentiated between vibration-sensitive 

land uses and the frequency of the events. 

The Category 1 vibration impact threshold is acceptable for most moderately sensitive 

equipment; other highly sensitive equipment would require a detailed analysis to determine the 

acceptable vibration levels and the effect of the Project on the equipment. There are no GBN 

impact thresholds for Category 1 land uses because equipment sensitive to GBV is generally not 

sensitive to GBN; however, other special Category 1 land uses, such as concert halls, television 

and recording studios, and theaters, can be very sensitive to GBV and GBN. FTA has developed 

special vibration impact thresholds for these Category 1 land uses, but these land uses were not 

encountered within the vibration impact contour distances. Category 2 and 3 land uses exist 

within the vibration impact distances discussed below. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-52 

Table 4.7-5: Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) and Ground-Borne Noise (GBN) Impact Criteria 

for General Assessment 

Land Use Category 

GBV Impact Levels (VdB re 1 μin/s) GBN Impact Levels (dBA re 20 μPa) 

Frequent 

Events 1

Occasional 

Events 2

Infrequent 

Events 3

Frequent 

Events 1

Occasional 

Events 2

Infrequent 

Events 3

Category 1: Buildings where 

vibration would interfere with 

interior operations. 

65 VdB 4 65 VdB 4 65 VdB 4 n/a 5 n/a 5 n/a 5

Category 2: Residences and 

buildings where people 

normally sleep. 

72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA 

Category 3: Institutional land 

uses with primarily daytime use. 

75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA 

Source: FRA, 2012. 

Notes: 1. Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same kind per day; 2. Occasional Events is defined as between 30 

and 70 vibration events of the same kind per day; 3. Infrequent Events is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day; 4. 

This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive 

manufacturing or research would require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building 

often requires special design of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and stiffened floors; 5. Vibration-sensitive equipment 

is not sensitive to GBN. 

4.7.2.2 Vibration Prediction Methodology 

The vibration assessment consists of the following general steps: 

1. Establish the study area and identify vibration-sensitive land uses. The FTA/FRA 

vibration screening assessment was not performed. Rather, the lands adjacent to the rail 

line were considered part of the study area, and the vibration study conducted for this 

Project identified the distance from the rail line at which vibration impacts would no 

longer occur. The Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Appendix P) provides additional 

detail regarding the vibration study conducted. 

2. Evaluate the railroad traffic conditions and set corresponding impact thresholds. 

3. Select the base generalized vibration curve, and then apply appropriate adjustments for 

factors such as speed. 

4. Determine the propagation from Project-related vibration sources to the impact 

thresholds. 

5. Identify receptors anticipated to experience vibration impacts. 

The FRA and FTA General Assessment methodologies are nearly identical and are intended to 

predict approximate magnitude of impact, and those with the highest magnitude of impact may 

merit a more-detailed assessment during subsequent engineering phases. Noise and vibrationsensitive land uses within the study area were identified according to FRA categories. Land use 

was identified from GIS databases, field surveys, and information on planned development from 

local planning departments. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-53 

The vibration prediction begins with selection of a generalized base curve, depending on the 

mode considered. These curves represent typical ground-surface vibration as a function of 

distance from the source, based on many GBV measurements of numerous transit sources. 

The generalized ground surface vibration curves suitable for assessing the high speed passenger 

trains (not the existing passenger or freight) are shown in Figure 4.7-3. They represent the upper 

range of the measurement data from equipment in good condition and were adjusted to account 

for projected operating speeds as described below. 

Figure 4.7-3: FRA Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves 

The generalized ground surface vibration curves suitable for assessing existing intercity 

passenger and freight trains (for the segments on which they are modeled) are shown in Figure 

4.7-4. These curves similarly represent the upper range of the measurement data from equipment 

in good condition. The top curve represents trains that are powered by diesel-electric 

locomotives, and the middle curve represents fixed-guideway steel-wheel transit vehicles such 

as light-rail vehicles and streetcars. 

The base curves must then be adjusted to account for Project-specific vibration factors that differ 

from the conditions of the base curve. Adjustment parameters are given in the FRA and FTA 

guidance and include train speed, wheel and rail type and condition, and type of track support 

system, among other adjustments. The adjustment parameters are based on typical vibration 

spectra and are given as generalized single numbers to be applied to the base curve. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-54 

Figure 4.7-4: FRA Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves Suitable for Assessing 

Transit and Freight Trains 

The adjustments are arithmetically added to the reference vibration curve, and the resulting levels 

are compared to the impact thresholds. This is algebraically equivalent to subtracting the same 

adjustments from the impact threshold and comparing it to the unadjusted reference curve. In 

this way, the graphical curves shown in Figures 4.7-3 and 4.7-4 can be used to find the distance 

to vibration impact. For this assessment, the distance to vibration impact was determined by 

looking up the level of the adjusted criterion curve on the y-axis and then finding the distance on 

the x-axis from the generalized vibration curve. 

Computation Assumptions and Input Data 

The vibration assessment used the same passenger and freight rail data as the noise assessment 

(Tables 4.7-1 and 4.7-2). The FRA generalized vibration curve “Steel-wheel at-grade” was used as 

the base curve for the impact assessment of the proposed additional intercity passenger trains 

(Figure 4.7-3). Freight trains already run through the DC2RVA corridor and are not modeled for 

any of the track in the existing corridor; however, where freight trains are being introduced, such 

as on the proposed bypass sections, the FTA generalized vibration curve “Locomotive powered 

passenger and freight” (Figure 4.7-4) was used as the base curve for the impact assessment of 

freight trains. 

Specific modeling considerations for each Build Alternative are provided in Table 4.7-6. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-55 

Table 4.7-6: Vibration Analysis Modeling Assumptions 

Alternative Area Alternative Modeling Assumption 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A, 1B, and 1C There are three alternatives, but no vibration-sensitive receptors within 500 feet 

of the Project; therefore, no vibration assessment was completed for Build 

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A There is only one alternative along the existing passenger rail corridor. The 

additional intercity passenger trains were modeled using the FRA generalized 

vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high speed trains. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A and 3B Build Alternatives 3A and 3B would route Project-related trains through the existing 

passenger rail corridor. The additional intercity passenger trains were modeled using 

the FRA generalized vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high speed trains. 

3C The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would route freight trains and 

potentially some of the passenger trains along a new alignment that bypasses 

Fredericksburg. The additional intercity passenger trains were modeled through 

the existing corridor using the FRA generalized vibration curve for steel-wheel atgrade high speed trains. Even at a lower speed, the freight trains generate more 

vibration than the passenger trains; therefore, the freight trains were modeled in 

the bypass corridor using the FTA generalized vibration curve for locomotivepowered passenger or freight trains. 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A There is only one alternative along the existing passenger rail corridor. The 

additional intercity passenger trains were modeled using the FRA generalized 

vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high speed trains. 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A, 5A–Ashcake, 

5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

and 5D–Ashcake 

Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would 

route Project-related trains through the existing passenger rail corridor. The 

additional intercity passenger trains are modeled using the FRA generalized 

vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high speed trains. 

5C and 

5C–Ashcake 

Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake would route the through passenger trains 

and the freight trains along a new alignment that bypasses the Town of Ashland, 

while passenger trains that stop in Ashland would use the bypassed area of the 

existing corridor. Even at a lower speed, the freight trains generate more vibration 

than the passenger trains; therefore, the freight trains were modeled in the bypass 

corridor using the FTA generalized vibration curve for locomotive-powered 

passenger or freight trains. The planned number of future passenger trains is the 

same as the number of passenger trains that currently use this portion of the 

DC2RVA corridor, and the planned future trains are on average shorter than the 

average length of existing trains, plus there would be no freight traffic. These 

changes represent a benefit to vibration effects; therefore, vibration contours were 

not calculated for the bypassed area of the existing corridor. 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, and 6E 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E would route Project-related trains via 

the current CSXT North End Subdivision (sometimes referred to as the A-line) 

between West Acca Yard in Richmond and Centralia, VA. The CSXT Bellwood 

Subdivision (sometimes referred to as the S-line) between Control Point 

Hermitage in Richmond and Centralia, VA, would not see any increase in 

passenger train traffic, so the trains were not modeled as a consequence of this 

Project on that section. The additional intercity passenger trains are modeled 

using the FRA generalized vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high speed 

trains. 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, and 6G 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G would route Project-related trains via 

the current S-line. The A-line would see a reduction in passenger trains, which 

represents a Project benefit, so the trains are not modeled as a consequence of 

this Project on that section. The additional intercity passenger trains were 

modeled using the FRA generalized vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high 

speed trains. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-56 

4.7.2.3 Predicted Vibration Levels 

Estimates of Project-related, train-induced GBV were developed based on the methodology 

described above. The predicted vibration levels were used to develop distance-to-vibrationimpact contours. 

4.7.2.4 Vibration Impact Assessment 

This section presents the results of the vibration impact assessment during operation and 

construction. 

Operational Vibration Impacts 

Using site-specific and project-specific data as explained above, DRPT conducted the vibration 

assessment by calculating the distance from the rail line at which train-induced vibration levels 

equal the FRA ground-borne vibration impact thresholds. Vibration impact contour lines were 

then overlaid upon digital aerial photographs (refer to Appendix P) to delineate the areas 

projected to experience vibration impacts. (See the Noise and Vibration Technical Report, Appendix 

P.) Vibration-sensitive land uses inside the vibration contours are projected to experience 

vibration impacts as defined by FRA. Table 4.7-7 shows the number of receptors anticipated to 

experience vibration impacts associated with each Build Alternative. 

Table 4.7-7: Vibration Impact Summary by Alternative 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Vibration Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A 0 0 0 0 

1B 0 0 0 0 

1C 0 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 0 15 0 15 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A 0 0 0 0 

3B 0 0 0 0 

3C 0 43 0 43 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A 0 2 0 2 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 0 25 1 26 

5A–Ashcake 0 25 1 26 

5B 0 30 1 31 

5B–Ashcake 0 30 1 31 

5C 0 35 1 36 

5C–Ashcake 0 35 1 36 

5D–Ashcake 0 30 1 31 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A 0 8 0 8 

6B–A-Line 0 8 0 8 

6B–S-Line 0 8 0 8 

6C 0 8 0 8 

6D 0 8 0 8 

6E 0 8 0 8 

6F 0 8 0 8 

6G 0 8 0 8 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-57 

Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C (Arlington). There are no vibration-sensitive receptors within 

500 feet of Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, or 1C; therefore, vibration impact contours were not 

calculated, and there are no receptors anticipated to experience vibration impacts for these Build 

Alternatives. 

Build Alternative 2A (Northern Virginia). Under Build Alternative 2A, 15 receptors are 

projected to experience vibration impacts. Additionally, there is a structure on National Register 

of Historic Places (NRHP)⎯the historic Alexandria Union Station⎯which is within all vibration 

impact contours; however, this structure was designed to stand next to rail transportation. 

Furthermore, the vibration levels are currently being compared to human-comfort criteria, which 

is much lower than vibration levels necessary to cause damage to even old, fragile structures. 

Therefore, while this structure is within the vibration impact contours, it is not considered an 

impact and is not included in Table 4.7-7. 

Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C (Fredericksburg). No receptors are projected to experience 

vibration impacts under Build Alternatives 3A or 3B that pass through town. Under the 

Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), 43 receptors are projected to experience vibration 

impacts as a result of freight trains operating along new alignment.

Build Alternative 4A (Central Virginia). Under Build Alternative 4A, two residential receptors 

are projected to experience vibration impacts. 

Build Alternatives 5A through 5D (Ashland). Under the Build Alternatives in the Ashland area, 26 

to 36 receptors are projected to experience vibration impacts. These impacts, including the Category 

3 impact at the Ashland Library, are based on the assumption that passenger trains are operating at 

90 mph through Ashland. In reality, trains would slow down through town, even if they are not 

stopping at the station. At this point, the tabulation of vibration impacts is considered a conservative 

overestimate. The addition of freight traffic on the proposed bypass alignment is the primary source 

of vibration impacts for Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake. 

Build Alternatives 6A through 6G (Richmond). Projected vibration impacts in the Richmond 

area are the same for all Build Alternatives. Vibration impacts are projected in areas where all 

trains operate on the same alignment. Refer to the Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Appendix 

P) for figures showing the locations of these impacts. 

Construction Vibration Impacts 

Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment 

and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread 

through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings near construction can respond to 

these vibrations, with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels; low 

rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels; and slight damage at the highest levels. 

Ground vibrations from construction activities do not often reach the levels that can damage 

structures, but they can reach the range of perceptible vibration or audible sound in buildings 

very close to the site. A possible exception is the case of fragile buildings where special care must 

be taken to avoid damage. The construction vibration criteria include special consideration for 

fragile buildings. The damage criteria published by FTA, using units of peak particle velocity 

(PPV) expressed in inches per second, are presented in Table 4.7-8. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-58 

Table 4.7-8: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria 

Building Category Description Damage Criteria, PPV (in./sec.) 

I Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 

II Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 

III Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 

IV Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 

Ground vibrations from construction activities can be audible and perceptible in buildings near 

the construction limits. Some buildings are more sensitive to vibration than others; they might 

have recording or broadcast facilities or vibration-sensitive equipment in them. FRA advocates a 

separate set of vibration criteria for buildings with vibration-sensitive uses or equipment inside 

of them. The criteria used for vibration-sensitive equipment is presented in Table 4.7-9. 

Table 4.7-9: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria–Vibration-Sensitive Equipment 

Type of Building or Room Max Lv, VdB 1

TV Studios 65 

Recording Studios 65 

Theaters 65 

Vibration-Sensitive Lab 48 

Notes: 1. RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second. 

PPVs associated with typical construction equipment, as published by FTA, are presented in Table 

4.7-10. These vibration emission levels and factors represent a conservatively high usage because it is 

not anticipated that all this machinery is to be used at any one particular location at the same time. 

Table 4.7-10: Construction Equipment PPV 

Equipment PPV at 25 ft (in./sec.) Approx. Lv1 at 25 ft. 

Pile Driver (impact) Upper range 1.518 112 

Typical 0.644 104 

Pile Driver (sonic) Upper range 0.734 105 

Typical 0.17 93 

Clam shovel drop 0.202 94 

Hydromill In soil 0.008 66 

In rock 0.017 75 

Vibratory Roller 0.21 94 

Hoe Ram 0.089 87 

Large bulldozer 0.089 87 

Caisson drilling 0.089 87 

Loaded trucks 0.076 86 

Jackhammer 0.035 79 

Small bulldozer 0.003 58 

Source: FTA, May 2006. 

Notes: 1. RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-59 

4.7.2.5 Vibration Mitigation 

Vibration mitigation options are limited due to the presence of freight trains in the DC2RVA 

corridor. Mitigation strategies, such as floating slabs, are not feasible options for tracks that also 

carry freight. Where freight trains operate, the only feasible options for mitigation of the trains 

are track and wheel maintenance measures, strategic location of special trackwork, and buffer 

zones between the tracks and the receptors. DRPT has no control over the implementation of 

these mitigation measures by the freight railroads. Passenger train maintenance can also be 

implemented to reduce ground-borne vibration; modification of the passenger rail vehicle 

suspension is also a potential mitigation option. DRPT will identify the necessary mitigation 

measures during the final design process. 

 Track and wheel maintenance: Maintenance procedures reduce vibration effects 

through regularly scheduled rail grinding, wheel truing programs, vehicle 

reconditioning programs, and implementation of flat-wheel detectors. These 

maintenance procedures minimize the vibration sources before they can affect vibrationsensitive receptors. 

 Location of special trackwork: Effects of special trackwork has not been evaluated in this 

assessment because the locations are likely to change as Project design progresses. It is 

crucial that vibration effects on sensitive receptors are evaluated when locating special 

trackwork. 

 Vehicle suspension: Changing the vehicle suspension of the passenger trains is normally 

an option only when creating a new fleet of passenger trains. It is not feasible for the 

freight train traffic, and it is unlikely that the existing passenger train fleet will modify 

their suspension. 

Construction-related vibration mitigation measures include BMP’s such as equipment selection, 

finding alternatives to traditional impact pile driving, and limiting the hours of operation and 

locations where sources of construction-related vibration will occur. DRPT will develop the 

details of these BMPs during the final design process. 

4.8 ENERGY 

4.8.1 Energy Consumption during Operation 

DRPT evaluated the Build Alternatives in terms of their potential to realize savings in energy 

consumed by all major modes of transportation in the DC2RVA corridor compared to the No 

Build Alternative. As noted in Section 3.8, travel by rail is the most energy-efficient mode of 

transportation. As a result, any substantial increase in rail ridership associated with any of the 

Build Alternatives that would shift ridership from the other less-efficient modes of transportation 

would result in conservation of travel-related energy. 

The estimated change in intercity passenger miles of travel of the Build Alternatives relative to 

the No Build Alternative are shown in Table 4.8-1 by mode of travel. The results in Table 4.8-1 

represent the benefit to other modes only from intercity passenger ridership accommodated by 

the DC2RVA project. Auto, bus, and air travel will continue to grow under the No Build 

Alternative and Build Alternatives, however, at a lesser rate under the Build Alternatives. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-60 

When comparing the Build Alternatives with the No Build Alternative, there would be an 

increase in intercity passenger rail miles, while the other three modes of transportation would 

experience a decrease, as shown in Table 4.8-1. This can be attributed to a shift in ridership from 

the other three modes to rail. 

DRPT estimated the future energy use of all modes in the DC2RVA corridor by calculating the 

total passenger miles of travel projected for 2045 by mode for the No Build Alternative and Build 

Alternatives and then applying the energy consumption rates by mode that are presented in 

Section 3.8. The estimated change in annual energy consumption of the Build Alternatives 

compared to the No Build Alternative is summarized in Table 4.8-2 by mode of travel. 

The results in Table 4.8-2 show that the total energy consumption from intercity passenger travel 

under the No Build Alternative would be higher than the Build Alternatives. By expanding intercity 

passenger rail service, the Build Alternatives would result in an increase in energy consumption 

compared to the No Build Alternative with regard to rail transportation; however, the other three 

modes would experience a decrease, which would result in an overall net decrease in energy 

consumption. As previously mentioned, this can be attributed to a shift in ridership from the other 

three less energy-efficient modes to rail. 

Table 4.8-1: Change in Annual Passenger Miles of Travel Compared to the No Build 

Alternative (millions)–Year 2045 

Build Alternative Rail Automobile Bus Air Total 

6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 315 -164 -31 -68 52 

6B–A-Line (Boulevard Station Only, 

A-Line) 

286 -149 -29 -60 48 

6B–S-Line (Boulevard Station Only, 

S-Line) 

286 -149 -29 -60 48 

6C (Broad Street Station Only) 277 -143 -27 -60 47 

6D (Main Street Station Only) 288 -151 -29 -60 48 

6E (Split Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

295 -154 -29 -63 49 

6F (Full Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

293 -156 -29 -61 47 

6G (Shared Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

296 -158 -29 -61 47 

Note: The results reflected in this table represent all passenger travel to, from, and within the DC2RVA corridor. Corridor-wide ridership 

forecasts for the Build Alternatives only differ based on which station option is used in Richmond (Ridership Technical Report, Appendix J). 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-61 

Table 4.8-2: Change in Annual Energy Consumption Compared to the No Build Alternative 

(billions of BTUs)–Year 2045 

Build Alternative Rail Automobile Bus Air Total 

6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 513 -636 -26 -158 -307 

6B–A-Line (Boulevard Station Only, 

A-Line) 

465 -578 -24 -140 -277 

6B–S-Line (Boulevard Station Only, 

S-Line) 

465 -578 -24 -140 -277 

6C (Broad Street Station Only) 451 -553 -23 -140 -265 

6D (Main Street Station Only) 469 -585 -23 -140 -280 

6E (Split Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

481 -596 -23 -148 -286 

6F (Full Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

478 -606 -24 -141 -293 

6G (Shared Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

481 -613 -24 -143 -299 

Note: The results reflected in this table represent all passenger travel to, from, and within the DC2RVA corridor. Corridor-wide ridership 

forecasts for the Build Alternatives only differ based on which station option is used in Richmond (Ridership Technical Report, Appendix J). 

When comparing the Build Alternatives with the No Build Alternative, there would be an 

increase in intercity passenger rail miles, while the other three modes of transportation would 

experience a decrease, as shown in Table 4.8-1. This can be attributed to a shift in ridership from 

the other three modes to rail. 

DRPT estimated the future energy use of all modes in the DC2RVA corridor by calculating the 

total passenger miles of travel projected for 2045 by mode for the No Build Alternative and Build 

Alternatives and then applying the energy consumption rates by mode that are presented in 

Section 3.8. The estimated change in annual energy consumption of the Build Alternatives 

compared to the No Build Alternative is summarized in Table 4.8-2 by mode of travel. 

The results in Table 4.8-2 show that the total energy consumption from intercity passenger travel 

under the No Build Alternative would be higher than the Build Alternatives. By expanding 

intercity passenger rail service, the Build Alternatives would result in an increase in energy 

consumption compared to the No Build Alternative with regard to rail transportation; however, 

the other three modes would experience a decrease, which would result in an overall net decrease 

in energy consumption. As previously mentioned, this can be attributed to a shift in ridership 

from the other three less energy-efficient modes to rail. 

4.8.2 Energy Consumption during Construction 

The No Build Alternative would not require any construction; therefore, no changes in energy 

consumption are expected. During construction of the Build Alternatives, additional energy 

would be expended beyond what would be used for normal rail operations. This additional 

energy would be consumed on a short-term basis by construction of improvements required to 

implement the Project and by construction-related delays to existing rail service in the DC2RVA 

corridor; however, once the Project is complete and additional improved passenger rail service is 

provided, long-term energy savings would be realized. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-62 

4.9 AESTHETIC AND VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 

4.9.1 Effects 

This section addresses the visual effects of the proposed Build Alternatives. To assess potential 

changes to the visual environment, a qualitative visual impact rating system was used that 

considers those changes from the perspective of viewers from the rail corridor (e.g., train 

passengers), as well as viewers looking toward the rail corridor. 

In accordance with FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (FRA, 1999), DRPT 

identified major changes likely to occur in the natural landscape and in the developed 

environment as a result of this Project. The assessment considers the visual changes associated 

with the Build Alternatives, such as track improvements, bridges, grade crossings/separations, 

roadway improvements, stations and maintenance facilities, and other permanent improvements 

associated with the Project. 

The level of visual impact was assessed by combining the severity of the change in visual quality 

with the degree to which people are sensitive to the change. 

Visual quality considers landscape qualities related to natural and/or man-made features, 

specifically: 

 Natural features, including topography, water courses, rock outcrops, and natural vegetation; 

 The positive and negative effects of man-made alterations to the environment and built 

structures on visual quality; and 

 Visual composition, including an assessment of the complexity and vividness of patterns 

that exist in the landscape. 

Visual sensitivity is based on the number and types of users, viewers, or sensitive receptors typically 

found in the study area. Generally, viewers in parks and residential areas are assumed to be the most 

sensitive to visual and aesthetic changes, and viewers in industrial areas would be the least sensitive. 

For each visual assessment unit, a High, Moderate, or Low Visual Impacts rating was assigned 

for the No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives. These ratings are described below: 

 Low Visual Impacts: The alternative is consistent with the existing visual elements in the 

landscape, such as line, form, texture, and color, and the alternative blends with the 

existing visual character. Viewers are generally not very sensitive to these changes. 

 Moderate Visual Impacts: The project is notably visible in the landscape but does not 

dominate or detract from the existing visual features. Viewers may notice these changes, 

but the changes are generally not seen as negative. 

 High Visual Impacts: The project elements are obvious and dominate the landscape 

detracting from the existing landscape characteristics or scenic qualities. Viewers are 

sensitive to these changes and may perceive them negatively. 

The following sections describe the visual changes associated with the Build Alternatives by the 

Visual Assessment Units (VAU). The No Build Alternative would not have visual effects 

associated with the DC2RVA Project. The Build Alternatives were described in detail in Chapter 

2. The existing conditions within each VAU were described in Section 3.9. A summary of effects 

within each VAU by alternative are provided in Table 4.9-1. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-63 

4.9.1.1 Arlington: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C 

VAU 1-1 (CFP 110 to CFP 109.3)—Long Bridge Approach. There are two existing tracks 

throughout this VAU with up to four tracks in some areas. The addition of one to two tracks on 

either side of the existing tracks would not result in major visual changes within this VAU. The 

existing tracks are already part of the landscape. Additionally, changes to the views from the train 

would be minimal. The visual impact rating is low for Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C. 

4.9.1.2 Northern Virginia: Build Alternative 2A 

VAU 2-1 (CFP 109.3 to CFP 100)—Crystal City through Franconia. Within this VAU, the number 

of tracks is generally three along the main line with up to ten or more in the Norfolk Southern (NS) 

Yard area south of Alexandria. The addition of one track on one side of the existing tracks, with the 

side varying, would not result in major changes within this VAU. Additionally, changes to the 

views from the train would be minimal. The visual impact rating is low for Build Alternative 2A. 

VAU 2-2 (CFP 100 to CFP 92)—Franconia through Lorton. The northern half of this VAU consists 

primarily of three tracks, with another two WMATA tracks located immediately to the west. The 

southern half transitions down to two tracks. The addition of one track on one side of the existing tracks, 

with the side varying, would not result in major changes within this VAU. Additionally, changes to the 

views from the train would be minimal. The visual impact rating is low for Build Alternative 2A. 

VAU 2-3 (CFP 92 to CFP 85)—Lorton through Neabsco Creek. There are two tracks through most 

of this VAU. The Occoquan River Railroad Bridge is the most notable rail visual feature within 

this VAU. Build Alternative 2A adds one track on one side of the existing tracks, with the side 

varying. It would also add a bridge on the east side of the existing Occoquan River Railroad 

Bridge that would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical profiles of the existing bridge to 

minimize the visual impacts. The views from the train would only differ slightly. The visual 

impact rating is moderate for Build Alternative 2A. 

VAU 2-4 (CFP 85 to CFP 62)—Neabsco Creek through north of Fredericksburg. The rail corridor 

includes two tracks throughout most of this VAU. Notable rail features are the numerous bridges 

in this section, including Neabsco Creek, Powells Creek, Quantico Creek, and Aquia Creek. Build 

Alternative 2A adds one track on one side of the existing tracks, with the side varying. It would 

also add bridges at each creek crossing except Quantico Creek, where two bridges currently carry 

three tracks at this location. The new bridges would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical 

profiles of the existing bridges to minimize the visual impacts. The views from the train would 

only differ slightly. The visual impact rating is moderate for Build Alternative 2A. 

4.9.1.3 Fredericksburg: Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C 

VAU 3-1 (CFP 62 to CFP 48)—through Fredericksburg. This section primarily consists of two 

tracks, though it broadens out to up to six tracks at the Fredericksburg rail yard on the south side 

of Fredericksburg. The most notable visible feature of the railroad is the Rappahannock River 

Bridge and station platforms. There would be a new raised station platform, parking deck, and 

station building for all Build Alternatives. These facilities would generally reflect the horizontal 

and vertical profiles of the existing facilities to minimize the visual impacts. Build Alternative 3A 

has a low visual impact rating because it does not add any track. Build Alternative 3B has a high 

visual impact rating because it adds one additional track to the east and an additional bridge over 

the Rappahannock River. The new bridge would be constructed with one additional track and 

include width for two tracks. Additionally, the new bridge would generally reflect the horizontal 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-64 

and vertical profiles of the existing bridge to minimize the visual impacts. Build Alternative 3B 

also includes a new grade separation at Landsdowne Road. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build 

Alternative 3C) is not within this VAU but is listed in VAU 3-2. 

VAU 3-2 (CFP 62 to CFP 48)—Fredericksburg Bypass. This VAU shares common areas on the 

north end and south end with VAU 3-1. Near CFP 61, it turns east and follows the existing singlerail track Dahlgren Spur. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would cross the 

Rappahannock River on new alignment and is on new alignment until reconnecting with the 

existing tracks near CFP 52. Much of the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) is on new 

alignment, except where following the Dahlgren Spur rail feature and where it ties into the CSXT 

main line at the north and south ends. Most passenger trains would still use the alignment 

through Fredericksburg, so views from the train would not be greatly altered. Only certain 

intercity passenger trains not serving Fredericksburg would use the bypass. The new bridge over 

the Rappahannock River would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical profiles of the 

existing upstream railroad bridge in downtown Fredericksburg to minimize the visual impacts. 

Given the new bridge over the Rappahannock River and the two tracks on new alignment, Build 

Alternative 3C has a high visual impact rating in this VAU. Four new highway-rail grade 

separations are also included along the new alignment section of Fredericksburg Bypass (Build 

Alternative 3C). The Build Alternatives that pass through town (Build Alternatives 3A and 3B) 

are not within this VAU but are listed in VAU 3-1. 

4.9.1.4 Central Virginia: Build Alternative 4A 

VAU 4-1 (CFP 48 to CFP 19)—South of Fredericksburg through Doswell. There are primarily 

two tracks within this VAU. The new bridges over the Mattaponi River and North Anna River 

would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical profiles of the existing bridges to minimize the 

visual impacts and are in areas where the number of viewers of the bridge structures are low. The 

addition of one track on one side of the existing tracks, with the side varying, and the new bridges 

would not result in major changes within this VAU. No new highway-rail grade separations are 

included with Build Alternative 4A. Additionally, changes to the views from the train would be 

minimal. The visual impact rating is low for Build Alternative 4A. 

4.9.1.5 Ashland: Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 

5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

VAU 5-1 (CFP 19 to CFP 9)—through Ashland. There are primarily two existing tracks throughout 

this VAU. The tracks are in the middle of the main downtown area in Ashland along Railroad 

Avenue (also called Center Street) and are a dominant feature of the landscape with the town 

buildings and roadways developed around the tracks. The Build Alternatives that pass through 

town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) would include new 

grade separations at Ashcake Road and Vaughan Road; however, these grade separations would 

be located outside of downtown Ashland. Build Alternative 5A would not add track, but it would 

have a visual change to the landscape due to the grade separations and would therefore have a 

moderate visual impact rating. Similarly, Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake would include the visual 

intrusion of a new station south of Ashcake Road but would still have a moderate visual impact 

rating. Build Alternatives 5B and 5B–Ashcake would add a single track adjacent to the existing 

tracks in a sensitive visual area through town and would have moderate visual impact. The visual 

impact of Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake would be slightly greater than Build Alternative 5B due to 

the station relocation at Ashcake but would still have a moderate visual impact rating. Similar to 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-65 

Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake, Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake would add a third track through 

downtown Ashland, which is a sensitive visual area. The impacts would be slightly less than Build 

Alternative 5B–Ashcake as the existing two tracks and the added third track would be centered 

through town; however, there would be the visual intrusion of a new station at Ashcake Road 

resulting in a moderate visual impact rating. The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–

Ashcake) are not within this VAU but are listed in VAU 5-2. 

VAU 5-2 (CFP 19 to CFP 9)—Ashland Bypass. This VAU shares a northern terminus and 

southern terminus with VAU 5-1. The remainder of the section is on new alignment, where there 

are no existing rail features. The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would 

add two tracks on a new alignment in this VAU. This would be a major change in the visual 

landscape, and the six proposed highway-rail grade separations would be highly visible. Build 

Alternative 5C–Ashcake would also have the visual intrusion of a new station facility south of 

Ashcake Road. There are no sensitive resources, but several residences would experience major 

changes in their viewshed with Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake, resulting in a high visual 

impact. Views from the long distance trains would be altered by no longer traveling through the 

Town of Ashland. The Build Alternatives that pass through town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–

Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) are not within this VAU but are listed in VAU 5-1. 

4.9.1.6 Richmond: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 

and 6G 

VAU 6-1 (CFP 9 to CFP 2)—South of Ashland through ACCA Yard. This VAU has two existing 

tracks on the north end with an increasing number of tracks approaching the Acca Yard. A new 

highway-rail grade separation at Hungary Road, located in a primarily suburban residential 

setting, would be included with all the Richmond Build Alternatives (Build Alternatives 6A 

through 6G) in this VAU. Some visual changes to views from the train would also occur. Staples 

Mill Station is located within this VAU. Build Alternatives 6A, 6E, 6F, and 6G would include a 

new two story station at Staples Mill and a new pedestrian bridge across the tracks to access the 

platforms. These alternatives would have a moderate visual impact rating based on these visual 

changes associated with the station. Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, and 6D would 

close the existing Staples Mill Station. These alternatives would have a low visual impact rating 

within this VAU because the visual changes to and from the train are minimal. 

VAU 6-2 (CFP 2 to SRN 0)—Acca Yard through Main Street along the S-Line. This approximately 

4-mile long VAU begins in the Acca Yard area with a large expanse of tracks. It tapers down to two 

existing tracks at the southern terminus near Main Street Station in downtown Richmond. The 

historic rail viaduct is an integral part of the scenic views. There are several notable rail visual 

features in the section, including Main Street Station and the Triple Crossing. New highway-rail 

grade separations would be included at Hermitage Road under Build Alternative 6B–S-Line and at 

Hospital Street/North 7th Street under Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G. Three of the 

DC2RVA intercity passenger rail route and station alternatives utilize the CSXT S-Line (Build 

Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G) and would involve the restoration of intercity passenger service on the 

west side of Main Street Station, and require the construction of one to two multistory parking 

garages within the viewshed of the main station building and also require alterations to historic 

platforms, thus diminishing the integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 

association. Build Alternative 6B–S-Line would also utilize the CSXT S-Line adjacent to Main Street 

Station but would bypass the station and result in a disuse of the station for intercity passenger rail 

purposes. Build Alternative 6E would maintain and slightly expand intercity passenger rail service 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-66 

at Main Street Station with the expansion of and alteration to the historic platforms. The singlestation alternatives at Boulevard (Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line) would also include 

a new station building and pedestrian overpass at Boulevard Station. The single-station alternative 

at Broad Street (Build Alternative 6C) would include a new station building and pedestrian 

overpass at Broad Street Station. Four single-station alternatives (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6B–S-Line, and 6C) would close Main Street Station to passenger rail service, but there would be 

no major visual changes to the station building itself. Each of the Richmond Build Alternatives (6A 

through 6G) would have an impact within this VAU. Some visual changes to views from the train 

would occur. Build Alternative 6A would have a moderate visual impact rating within this VAU. 

Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G would have a high visual impact 

rating within this VAU because there is extensive trackwork coupled with sensitive resources. 

VAU 6-3 (SRN 0 to A 11)—Main Street through Centralia via the S-Line. Build Alternatives that 

route intercity passenger trains via the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia operate 

through this VAU, each of which consists of adding a single track to the existing James River 

crossing. Most of the section south of the James River consists of two tracks with some limited 

areas widening out to as many as eight tracks. A new highway-rail grade separation would be 

included with Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G. The most notable rail visual feature 

is the James River crossing. Some visual changes to views from the train would occur. The new 

bridge on the James River S-line would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical profiles of the 

existing bridge to minimize the visual impacts. Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G 

would have a high visual impact rating due to the additional bridge across the James River. 

VAU 6-4 (CFP 2 to A 11)—Acca Yard through Centralia via the A-Line. The Build Alternatives 

that route intercity passenger trains via the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) operate through this VAU, which primarily consists of 

two existing tracks. New highway-rail grade separations would be included at Broad Rock 

Boulevard and Walmsley Boulevard under Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E. The most 

notable feature in this VAU is the scenic railroad bridge over the James River on the A-line. This 

bridge is visible from many nearby parks and residential areas, as well as from the river itself, 

which is highly used for recreational purposes; no change is proposed to the existing bridge. Some 

visual changes to views from the train would occur. All Build Alternatives would have a low 

visual impact rating because minimal track work and no additional bridge across the James River 

are proposed in this VAU. 

VAU 6-5 (SRN 0 to CA 87)—Main Street Station through Hospital Wye. There is a single track 

within this VAU. There are no notable rail visual features. The Build Alternatives do not involve 

any track work within this VAU. There would be no effect on views to or from the railroad. All 

Build Alternatives have a low visual impact rating within this VAU. 

VAU 6-6 (SRN 0 to CA 80)—Main Street Station through Fulton Yard/Eastern Henrico County. 

This VAU includes two existing tracks where it parallels the James River, expanding to more than 

ten tracks to the east of Richmond. The most notable rail feature is the raised rail bridge that is 

parallel to the James River. The Build Alternatives do not involve any track work within this 

VAU. There would be no effect on views to or from the railroad. All Build Alternatives have a 

low visual impact rating within this VAU. 

The High, Moderate, or Low Visual ratings for each VAU and each Build Alternative are provided 

in Table 4.9-1. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-67 

Table 4.9-1: Visual Impact Rating by Visual Assessment Unit 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Visual Assessment Unit (VAU) 

1-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 3-2 4-1 5-1 5-2 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A L – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

1B L – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

1C L – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A – L L M M – – – – – – – – – – – 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A – – – – – L – – – – – – – – – – 

3B – – – – – H – – – – – – – – – – 

3C – – – – – – H – – – – – – – – – 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A – – – – – – – – M – – – – – – – 

5A–Ashcake – – – – – – – – M – – – – – – – 

5B – – – – – – – – M – – – – – – – 

5B–Ashcake – – – – – – – – M – – – – – – – 

5C – – – – – – – – – H – – – – – – 

5C–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – H – – – – – – 

5D–Ashcake – – – – – – – – M – – – – – – – 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – – – – – – – – – – M M L L L L 

6B–A-Line – – – – – – – – – – L H L L L L 

6B–S-Line – – – – – – – – – – L H H L L L 

6C – – – – – – – – – – L H L L L L 

6D – – – – – – – – – – L H H L L L 

6E – – – – – – – – – – M H L L L L 

6F – – – – – – – – – – M H H L L L 

6G – – – – – – – – – – M H H L L L 

 L = Low Visual Impact; M = Moderate Visual Impact; H = High Visual Impact 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-68 

4.9.2 Mitigation Evaluation 

DRPT will work with affected communities during the final design process to obtain public 

review and comment on the nature and style of design for new physical structures, such as major 

waterway crossings, highway-rail grade separations, and station improvements. DRPT 

anticipates that new bridges and buildings would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical 

profiles of existing bridges and building in their environs to minimize the visual impact. 

Constructing tracks adjacent to the existing tracks would also minimize visual impacts and would 

occur for the Build Alternatives through most of the DC2RVA corridor, except for the 

Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 

5C–Ashcake). These Build Alternatives would construct a railroad with highway-rail grade 

separations along new alignment. With these strategies, DRPT has determined that most of the 

Build Alternatives have low to moderate visual impact ratings. 

Other visual impact mitigation strategies that DRPT will consider during the final design process 

include: 

 Incorporating landscaping to screen undesirable features 

 Using other screening techniques for undesirable features 

 Adding architectural design features in character with existing visual environs 

 Minimizing tree and shrub removal

 Enhancing or creating visually pleasing designs

4.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Under the No Build Alternative, CSXT would continue maintenance and repairs of the existing 

infrastructure, and infrastructure improvements that are already planned for the DC2RVA 

corridor, as defined in Section 2.5.1.1, would move forward. Anticipated effects of the No Build 

Alternative are discussed below in comparison with the Build Alternatives. All practicable 

measures would be taken to avoid and minimize impacts; however, due to the length and linear 

nature of the DC2RVA Project, impacts to habitats would be unavoidable. For this EIS, estimated 

impacts to habitats and natural communities are calculated using a conservative assumption and 

are categorized as permanent or temporary. 

4.10.1 Habitat and Natural Communities 

Construction of any of the Build Alternatives would result in effects to the general ecology of its 

surroundings. The Build Alternatives would affect terrestrial natural communities and associated 

wildlife habitat through conversion of existing land coverage to railroad structures and 

maintained right-of-way. Depending on the combination of Build Alternatives, between 31 and 

264 acres of habitat are estimated to be permanently converted by the proposed improvements 

within and outside of the existing railroad right-of-way. This conversion would result in the loss 

of wildlife habitat. Permanent (converted to use by the railroad) and temporary (able to 

renaturalize after construction completion) impacts to general habitat types within the LOD of 

each Build Alternative are summarized in Table 4.10-1. Most of the area affected by the Build 

Alternatives, aside from the bypasses, is already developed. Habitats that would be affected are 

directly adjacent to the existing rail line and are already altered by local activities, including 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-69 

operation of the railroad, with the exception of the bypass alternatives (i.e., Build Alternatives 3B 

and 5C). Disturbance or loss of these upland habitats adjacent to the existing railroad would not 

result in substantial impacts to wildlife due to their location and widespread availability of such 

habitats within the study area and the region. 

Table 4.10-1: Habitat Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Agriculture (pasture/row crop/ grassland) Aqueous Habitat (wetlands/streams/ open water) Upland Forest Crosses Internal Forest Habitat* Shrub Area/Old Field Riparian/Bottomland Forest/PFO Urban/Developed Lands Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A – – – No – – P: –– 

T: 0.6 

P: –– 

T: 0.6 

1B – – – No – – P: 1.5 

T: 0.9 

P: 1.5 

T: 0.9 

1C – – – No – – P: 0.4 

T: 0.7 

P: 0.4 

T: 0.7 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A P: 2.1 

T: 1.6 

P: 1.1 

T: 2.0 

P: 15.0 

T: 7.2 

No P: 0.2 

T: 0.1 

P: 1.3 

T: 0.9 

P: 13.2 

T: 11.8 

P: 32.9 

T: 23.6 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A P: 0.1 

T: 1.1 

P: 0.1 

T: 0.4 

P: 0.4 

T: 3.2 

No – P: 0.1 

T: 1.4 

P: 1.5 

T: 3.4 

P: 2.2 

T: 9.5 

3B P: 2.3 

T: 1.4 

P: 1.9 

T: 0.9 

P: 2.1 

T: 3.5 

No – P: 0.1 

T: 1.4 

P: 13.4 

T: 5.2 

P: 19.8 

T: 12.4 

3C P: 32.7 

T: 8.2 

P: 8.5 

T: 3.1 

P: 66.9 

T:17.4 

Yes – P: 13.2 

T: 4.0 

P: 19.3 

T: 5.4 

P: 140.6 

T: 38.1 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A P: 0.9 

T: 7.4 

P: 0.3 

T: 5.1 

P: 0.5 

T:10.1 

No P: 0.1 

T: 1.0 

P: 0.1 

T: 9.4 

P: 0.7 

T: 7.6 

P: 2.6 

T: 40.6 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.4 

T: 4.7 

No P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.2 

T: 0.6 

P: 18.1 

T: 6.7 

P: 21.9 

T: 12.9 

5A–Ashcake P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.4 

T: 4.7 

No P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.2 

T: 0.6 

P: 16.4 

T: 6.7 

P: 20.2 

T: 12.9 

5B P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.4 

T: 4.7 

No P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.6 

T: 0.9 

P: 25.6 

T: 7.6 

P: 29.4 

T: 14.1 

5B–Ashcake P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.4 

T: 4.8 

No P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.6 

T: 0.9 

P: 25.9 

T: 8.7 

P: 29.7 

T: 15.3 

5C P: 29.3 

T: 5.7 

P: 2.3 

T: 0.3 

P: 64.0 

T:20.7 

Yes P:11.0 

T: 2.4 

P: 4.7 

T: 0.9 

P: 36.5 

T: 8.9 

P: 147.8 

T: 38.9 

5C–Ashcake P: 29.3 

T: 5.7 

P: 2.3 

T: 0.3 

P: 64.0 

T:20.7 

Yes P:11.0 

T: 2.4 

P: 4.7 

T: 0.9 

P: 34.8 

T: 8.9 

P: 146.1 

T: 38.9 

5D–Ashcake P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.0 

T: 4.9 

No P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.2 

T: 0.9 

P: 32.3 

T: 9.1 

P: 36.1 

T: 15.8 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-70 

Table 4.10-1: Habitat Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Agriculture (pasture/row crop/ grassland) Aqueous Habitat (wetlands/streams/ open water) Upland Forest Crosses Internal Forest Habitat* Shrub Area/Old Field Riparian/Bottomland Forest/PFO Urban/Developed Lands Total 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – – P: 3.7 

T: 2.7 

No – P: 1.5 

T: 0.7 

P: 70.8 

T: 35.5 

P: 76.0 

T: 38.9 

6B–A-Line – – P: 3.9 

T: 2.8 

No – P: 1.5 

T: 0.7 

P: 95.6 

T: 48.3 

P: 101.0 

T: 51.8 

6B–S-Line – P: 0.7 

T: 0.7 

P: 6.5 

T: 3.3 

No – P: 2.5 

T: 0.6 

P: 68.9 

T: 17.6 

P: 78.6 

T: 22.2 

6C – – P: 4.4 

T: 2.8 

No – P: 1.5 

T: 0.7 

P: 122.1 

T: 48.6 

P: 128.0 

T: 52.1 

6D – P: 0.7 

T: 0.7 

P: 6.5 

T: 3.3 

No – P: 2.5 

T: 0.6 

P: 63.9 

T: 17.7 

P: 73.6 

T: 22.3 

6E – – P: 6.4 

T: 3.5 

No – P: 2.2 

T: 0.8 

P: 80.5 

T: 57.1 

P: 89.1 

T: 61.4 

6F – P: 0.6 

T: 0.7 

P: 6.7 

T: 3.3 

No – P: 2.5 

T: 0.6 

P: 73.1 

T: 18.3 

P: 82.9 

T: 22.9 

6G – P: 0.6 

T: 0.7 

P: 6.3 

T: 3.3 

No – P: 2.5 

T: 0.6 

P: 71.5 

T: 17.6 

P: 80.9 

T: 22.2 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact. 

*Areas of internal forest that are a minimum of 300 feet from the edge of the forested area. 

Due to the new area crossed by the Build Alternatives that includes new bypasses, more habitat 

not already affected by human activities would be affected. A greater amount of all habitat types 

would be permanently converted, and larger areas of intact forested habitat would be bisected, 

removing a large portion of interior forest and fragmenting habitat. Interior forest habitats are 

located 300 feet or farther from the forest edge and are commonly composed of mature trees. 

These areas are important to forest interior dwelling species (FIDS), especially Neotropical 

migrant songbirds that utilize these habitats for foraging, breeding, and nesting. FIDS can also 

include certain mammals, especially certain species of bats, reptiles, and amphibians that prefer 

unbroken forested tracts. 

The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) crosses an area of 1,200+ acres of continuous 

forest southwest of the Rappahannock. This area includes Virginia Outdoors Fund Easements 

and the Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary, discussed in Section 4.10.1.1. This area also 

includes at least 750 acres of interior habitat defined as ‘high’ by the VDCR Ecological Core model 

that is connected to a very large area of ‘outstanding’ habitat associated with Fort A. P. Hill. The 

Virginia Outdoors Fund Easements and the Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary, including the 

majority of the forest mentioned above, would be cut off from the Fort A. P. Hill habitat by the 

construction of the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), and a large portion of the 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-71 

interior habitat would be lost and/or degraded due to the introduction of the railroad through 

the habitat. 

The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) cross several smaller wildlife 

corridors associated with waterways, and three larger tracts of forested habitats (approximately 

140, 380, and 180 acres) with interior habitat that would be bisected by the proposed alignment 

resulting in a decrease of interior habitat. 

Station upgrades would occur in urban areas. Although the LODs are wider in these locations, 

only small additional amounts of urban tree canopy would be affected. 

4.10.1.1 Conservation Areas 

DRPT have made efforts, to the extent practicable, to avoid impacts to existing conservation areas 

(federal and state) and priority conservation areas (areas of habitat designated as worthy of 

conservation). Aside from temporary impacts to Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area, the 

alternatives avoid existing conservation areas. Due to the linear nature of the Project and the 

location of the existing tracks through rural areas, some of the habitat areas adjacent to the 

DC2RVA corridor have been determined worthy of conservation for a variety of qualities. 

Unavoidable impacts to these areas are outlined below (Table 4.10-2). As previously mentioned, 

impacts listed are the total area of predicted temporary and permanent impacts within the 

proposed LOD, unless otherwise noted. A more detailed discussion of conservation area impacts 

can be found in the Natural Resources Technical Report (Appendix M). 

State Wildlife Lands 

DRPT anticipates that Build Alternatives 4A would result in unavoidable temporary impacts to 

Mattaponi State Wildlife Management Area. Approximately 2.54 acres adjacent to existing 

railroad right-of-way would be disturbed for construction and then replanted and encouraged to 

renaturalize. Coordination with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) 

would be necessary. 

County Wildlife Lands 

DRPT anticipates that Build Alternative 2A would result in approximately 0.55 acre of temporary 

impacts to Pohick Seeps Conservation Area. The site is located on parcels owned by Fairfax 

County that have a Permanent Wildlife Conservation Easement. Depending on the type of 

impacts proposed, temporary impacts could potentially be considered permanent for the rare 

habitat located there. Proposed work in this area will require coordination with Fairfax County. 

Private Wildlife Lands 

Two parcels containing open-space easements managed by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation 

(VOF) are crossed by the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C). DRPT anticipates that 

VOF conservation area CLN-VOF-3804 would have 1.22 acres of permanent impacts and 0.32 acre 

of temporary impacts, and area CLN-VOF-03850 would have 21.09 acres of permanent impact 

and 5.37 acres of temporary impact. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would 

bisect intact interior forested habitat in these locations. Coordination with VOF may be necessary. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-72 

Table 4.10-2: Conservation Area Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative 

USFWS 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuges 

State 

Wildlife 

Lands 

County 

Wildlife 

Lands 

Private 

Wildlife 

Lands 

Priority 

Conservation 

Areas 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A – n/a n/a n/a n/a 

1B – n/a n/a n/a n/a 

1C – n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A – – P: –––

T: 0.55 

n/a P: 0.01 

T: 0.78 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A n/a n/a n/a – P: 0.03 

T: 1.52 

3B n/a n/a n/a – P: 0.10 

T: 1.61 

3C n/a n/a n/a P: 22.31 

T: 5.69 

P: 83.36 

T: 18.63 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A n/a P: –––

T: 2.54 

n/a n/a P: –––

T: 2.48 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

5A–Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

5B n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

5B–Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

5C n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 4.80 

T: 21.13 

5C–Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 4.80 

T: 21.13 

5D–Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6B–A-Line n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6B–S-Line n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6C n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6D n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6E n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6F n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6G n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

Source: VDOT-CEDAR, 2015. 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact, n/a = no resources located in that Area 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-73 

Priority Conservation Areas including Wildlife Corridors 

Details about unavoidable impacts to Priority Conservation Areas are described in the Natural 

Resources Technical Report (Appendix M). These areas are recommended for preservation. 

Temporary impacts may be permanent depending on the type of impact and the potential to 

disrupt sensitive resources that may not have the ability to recover (e.g., clearing and grubbing 

of an area with a rare plant community). 

Aside from the proposed Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), which bisects a large 

forested area and wildlife corridor, all impacts to wildlife corridors would result from widening 

the existing railroad. In some of these areas, wildlife are able to use areas under bridges that span 

waterways and dry culverts. Larger animals may be able to successfully cross existing tracks if 

no fencing or other additional barriers exist; however, an increased track area and increased train 

traffic would result in a decreased ability for wildlife to cross and increased mortality rates. Figure 

3.10-2 in Chapter 3 identifies the existing wildlife corridors. Overall, DRPT does not anticipate a 

substantial amount of wildlife crossing. 

4.10.1.2 Invasive Species 

The Build Alternatives could increase the spread of invasive species. Construction equipment 

used could carry seeds or propagative plant parts from other construction projects or infested 

areas. Removal of sediment and soil to offsite locations could spread invasive species, and 

placement of fill from borrow sites could introduce invasive species to the study area. Exposed 

soil also allows invasive species to spread, which could contribute to encroachment of invasive 

species on vegetation communities adjacent to the LOD. 

In accordance with EO 13112, Invasive Species, the potential for the establishment of invasive 

plant species during construction of any Build Alternative would be minimized by prompt 

seeding of disturbed areas with seeds that are tested in accordance with the Virginia Seed Law to 

ensure that seed mixes are free of noxious species. To prevent the introduction of new invasive 

species and to prevent the spread of existing populations, BMPs would also be followed and 

could include washing machinery before it enters the area, minimizing ground disturbance, and 

reseeding disturbed areas. While the LOD is vulnerable to colonization by invasive plant species 

from adjacent properties, implementation of the stated provisions would reduce the potential for 

the establishment and proliferation of invasive species. 

4.10.1.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Due to the need to expand existing bridge crossings of major waterways where submerged aquatic 

vegetation (SAV) exists, the proposed Project would have unavoidable impacts on these plant 

species. Permanent impacts would include areas converted for the use of piers or infrastructure, 

while temporary impacts would include disturbed areas with the ability to support SAV again after 

construction completion. Impacts to SAV are only anticipated to occur with Build Alternative 2A. 

No SAV beds occur in the DC2RVA corridor south of Aquia Creek, and proposed improvements 

included with Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would not require work in waters containing SAV. 

Estimated acres of impacts to SAV are presented in Table 4.10-3 (Figure 4.10-1). A request to remove 

SAV from or plant SAV on state-administered benthic surfaces would be submitted with a JPA to 

VMRC. In determining whether to grant approval for SAV removal or planting, VMRC shall be 

guided by §28.2-1205 of the Code of Virginia and the SAV Transplantation Guidelines, or any new 

and improved methodologies as approved by VMRC (VMRC, 2000). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-74 

Table 4.10-3: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative Existing Historic Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A P: ––– 

T: 0.03 

– P: ––– 

T: 0.03 

1B P: ––– 

T: 0.01 

– P: ––– 

T: 0.01 

1C – – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A P: 1.33 

T: 1.91 

P: 0.37 

T: 0.35 

P: 1.70 

T: 2.26 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact. 

There is no SAV south of Aquia Creek; therefore, there are no impacts listed for the Build Alternatives in Alternative Areas 3, 4, 5, and 6. 

4.10.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

Minimization measures to protect natural habitats and communities could involve modifications 

to later designs such as: 

 Minor alignment shifts to avoid or minimize impacts 

 Minimizing clearing and grubbing, in particular in riparian areas 

 Development of a mitigation plan that includes landscaping and planting detail for onsite 

replacement of any trees removed 

 Native revegetation, including native shrub plantings and native reseeding of disturbed 

areas to prevent the spread of invasive species, and additional erosion during storm 

events due to exposed soil 

 Using bridges or open bottom culverts in streams to minimize the disruption of natural 

stream bottoms 

Invasive Species 

To avoid the introduction of new invasive species and prevent the spread of existing populations, 

BMPs should be followed, including washing machinery before it enters the area to prevent the 

spread of seeds and minimizing ground disturbance. Prompt seeding of disturbed areas with 

native seeds or seeds that are tested in accordance with the Virginia Seed Law to ensure that seed 

mixes are free of noxious species will decrease the ability for invasive species to take root and 

outcompete native species. 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Mitigation for areas of temporary disturbance to SAV would be coordinated with VMRC. The 

following procedures are suggested by the Chesapeake Bay Program (Chesapeake Bay Program, 

1995) for the protection of SAV areas: 

 Protect existing, historic, and potential SAV areas from physical disruption 

 Avoid or minimize dredging within SAV areas 

 Avoid nearby construction activities that create additional turbidity 

 Avoid reduction in Secchi depths (measure of water clarity) compared to predisturbance levels 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-75 

Figure 4.10-1: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-76 

Figure 4.10-1: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-77 

Figure 4.10-1: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-78 

Figure 4.10-1: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-79 

 Establish an undisturbed buffer around SAV beds 

 If construction must occur near or in beds, avoid activities during the growing season 

(April–October for most species) 

 Preserve natural shorelines through stabilization with marsh plantings 

Further efforts to avoid and/or minimize disturbance and removal of SAV would be made during 

final design as part of obtaining the VMRC permit. Erosion and sediment control measures would 

minimize potential impacts to water quality within adjacent SAV areas. Construction within or 

adjacent to SAV areas would avoid the growing season for representative plant species to the 

extent practicable. Mitigation for SAV loss would be developed in coordination with VMRC and 

may include enhancement (increase aerial coverage of SAV beds or improvement in habitat 

quality) or restoration (return SAV to unvegetated bottom, which historically supported SAV) of 

SAV beds. 

4.10.2 Wildlife 

Construction activities associated with the build alternatives, including clearing and grubbing and 

direct use of adjacent habitat, could result in the disturbance of local wildlife species such as birds, 

reptiles and amphibians, deer, foxes, squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, groundhogs, and other common 

mammals associated with these areas. Mobile species, such as adult birds, mammals, and some reptiles, 

would be displaced during construction. Loss of less mobile animals may result from construction. 

These species would return and repopulate the area once construction has been completed. 

Additional loss of wildlife may occur due to mortality from collisions with trains, increased 

habitat fragmentation (discussed further in Section 4.10.1, Habitat and Natural Communities), 

impacts to aqueous habitats due to decreased water quality (discussed further in Section 4.1.3, 

Water Quality), and habitat loss through the introduction of invasive species (discussed further 

in Section 4.10.1.2, Invasive Species). As noted in Section 4.10.1, DRPT does not anticipate a 

substantial amount of wildlife crossing. 

4.10.2.1 Colonial Waterbirds 

All mapped colonial waterbird colonies are located more than 1 mile from the proposed Project. 

Due to the distance of the rail corridor from known colonies, DRPT does not anticipate that any 

activities associated with the build alternatives would have any impact on colonial waterbirds. 

4.10.2.2 Migratory Birds 

The migratory birds of primary concern in the study area are migratory songbirds, commonly 

referred to as Neotropical migrants. Short-term adverse impacts from construction noise and 

disturbance may mask territorial vocalizations of birds and breeding calls, and they may 

temporarily disturb breeding pairs. Important stopover habitat for migratory songbirds includes 

forested areas with dense undergrowth that provides cover from predators. Migratory birds 

could be affected through habitat degradation and loss associated with this Project. Most of the 

lost habitat associated with this Project, aside from proposed bypasses, would be directly adjacent 

to the existing rail line and is lower quality edge habitat already impacted by local activities. 

Nearby conservation areas, such as federal, state, and private wildlife lands, are more likely to 

provide optimal habitat for these species. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-80 

The proposed Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would use larger areas of habitat, each affecting approximately 

80 acres of forested areas, and would bisect a large area of interior forested habitat (located 300 

feet or farther from the forest edge and commonly composed of mature trees). These areas 

provide important habitat to many migratory species and protect them from predators that prefer 

the forest edge. The Fredericksburg Bypass would cut through two VOF easements, a large 

forested area including wildlife corridors, and may represent important sites for FIDS, which 

need large, relatively unfragmented tracts of hardwood or mixed hardwood forest to successfully 

breed and maintain viable populations. FIDS prefer tracts in excess of 100 acres or they require 

large contiguous linear tracts of hardwood or mixed hardwood forest that are a minimum of 600 

feet wide, as many of these species prefer nest sites to be located greater than 300 feet from the 

forest edge. This diverse group includes Neotropical migrant songbirds such as tanagers, 

warblers, and vireos that breed in North America and winter in the Caribbean, Central America, 

and South America, as well as residents and short-distance migrants such as woodpeckers, some 

raptors, and owls (Jones, et. al., 2001). Songbirds using these areas may be displaced and would 

disperse to nearby areas with suitable habitat, which may create greater competition. 

4.10.2.3 Aquatic and Marine Life 

Due to the number and type of water crossings involved, direct disturbance of aquatic communities 

would be unavoidable. In-stream work and use of wetland areas would result in the elimination of 

some aqueous habitat and species that would be unable to relocate. Additional impacts to aqueous 

habitats due to decreased water quality (discussed further in Section 4.1.3, Water Quality) and 

habitat loss through the introduction of invasive species could occur (discussed further in Section 

4.10.1.2, Invasive Species). 

Fisheries, Anadromous Fish, and Trout Waters 

Cook Lake in Cameron Run Regional Park, the only mapped trout water in the Project vicinity 

(VDGIF, 2015b), is not located near the LOD and is not expected to be affected. Anticipated 

impacts to waters containing anadromous fish are dependent on the size of the water body and 

the type of crossing required. Depending on the combination of build alternatives selected, DRPT 

estimates there would be between 8,235 and 14,420 linear feet of permanent impacts to anadromous 

fish waters. Temporary and permanent impacts are detailed in Table 4.10-4. 

Table 4.10-4: Confirmed Anadromous Fish Use Waters

Water Alternative Confirmed Species 

Anticipated Impacts 

(Linear Feet) 

Four Mile Run 2A Striped Bass, Yellow Perch P: 189 

T: 692 

Occoquan River 2A Alewife, American Shad, Blueback 

Herring, Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

P: 1,161 

T: 1,275 

Neabsco Creek 2A Striped Bass P: 1,201 

T: 1,332 

Powells Creek 2A Striped Bass, Yellow Perch P: 1,592 

T: 1,908 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-81 

Table 4.10-4: Confirmed Anadromous Fish Use Waters

Water Alternative Confirmed Species 

Anticipated Impacts 

(Linear Feet) 

Aquia Creek 2A American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped 

Bass, Yellow Perch 

P: 2,085 

T: 3,641 

Claiborne Run 3A Potential anadromous fish use waters P: 227 

T: 318 

3B P: 1,231 

T: 682 

3C P: 362 

T: 507 

Rappahannock 

River 

3B Alewife, American Shad, Blueback 

Herring, Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

P: 914 

T: 922 

3C P: 1,034 

T: 2,094 

Mattaponi River 4A American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped 

Bass, Yellow Perch 

P: 715 

T: 1,167 

North Anna 

River 

4A American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

P: 252 

T: 386 

Little River 4A Yellow Perch P: 179 

T: 228 

South Anna 

River 

5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

5C, 5C–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake 

Alewife, American Shad, Blueback 

Herring, Hickory Shad, Striped Bass 

P: 230 

T: 329 

James River 6B–S-Line American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped 

Bass, Yellow Perch 

P: 2,940 

T: 6,162 

6D P: 2,940 

T: 6,162 

6F P: 3,905 

T: 5,197 

6G P: 3,905 

T: 5,197 

Falling Creek 6A Potential anadromous fish use waters P: 242 

T: 174 

6B–A-Line P: 242 

T: 174 

6C P: 242 

T: 174 

6E P: 242 

T: 174 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-82 

4.10.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

Wildlife 

DRPT will evaluate further minimization of impacts to wildlife during the final design process 

by decreasing LOD in habitat areas. This will include considering conservative use of staging 

areas and limiting access roads to reduce habitat loss. Wildlife passage can be facilitated through 

wildlife crossings. Wildlife crossings are man-made structures that allow animals to safely cross 

barriers. These crossings allow the connection or reconnection between habitats mitigating the 

impacts of habitat fragmentation, allow greater access to resources, and avoid wildlife/train 

collisions. DRPT will evaluate providing oversized culverts and extended bridges in areas where 

habitat fragmentation would occur. If pipes are used, they should be countersunk a minimum of 

3 inches for pipes under 24 inches and a minimum of 6 inches for pipes 24 inches or greater. 

Migratory Birds 

General time-of-year (TOY) restrictions on construction activities to avoid impacts on migratory 

and resident songbirds in Virginia are from mid-March through mid-August and for migrant 

passerines and non-passerines from the beginning of May through the end of July (VDGIF, 2016). 

To the maximum extent practicable, DRPT will avoid grading and construction during the 

breeding season. If construction is necessary during the breeding season, DRPT will conduct nest 

surveys, if necessary, and will avoid activities within 100 feet of active nests, where possible. 

DRPT will not plant food sources within the right-of-way, which will make the right-of-way less 

attractive to birds decreasing the likelihood of collisions with trains. 

Aquatic and Marine Life 

DRPT will work with VDGIF, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during the design process to develop specific measures for 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts to aquatic wildlife. DRPT will implement 

BMPs, including use of silt curtains and limiting overflow from dredging equipment, which will 

minimize increases in turbidity of waters downstream of in-water activities. Erosion and 

sediment control measures will also minimize potential impacts to water quality during 

construction. 

Bottomless culverts and single-span bridges will be considered at smaller streams to maintain 

fish passage and channel morphology and to avoid instream work to the extent practicable. If 

pipes are used, they should be countersunk a minimum of 3 inches for pipes under 24 inches and 

a minimum of 6 inches for pipes 24 inches or greater. Preconstruction sediment quality 

assessments and water quality monitoring during construction will be considered to address 

potential resuspension of contaminants and nutrients into overlying waters. 

TOY restrictions will be considered to avoid or minimize impacts on fish during early life stages. 

VDGIF typically recommends restrictions on all in-stream work within Anadromous Fish Use 

Areas and their tributaries between February 15 and June 30. Exact restrictions will vary 

depending on the species, type of work, and location and will be developed with VDGIF. 

Stormwater management measures, including detention basins, vegetative controls, and other 

measures, will be implemented to minimize water quality impacts, if necessary. These measures 

will reduce or detain discharge volumes and remove pollutants, thus avoiding substantial further 

degradation of impaired water bodies in and downstream of the study area. With implementation 

of these BMPs, DRPT anticipates the proposed Project will not adversely affect downstream 

species. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-83 

4.10.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Potential impacts to federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered species that may be present 

within the study area could occur for the build alternatives where planned improvements affect 

areas where species or their habitat may be found. 

Based on research through regulatory agency online databases, agency input regarding 

threatened and endangered species that may be present within the study area, and field surveys of 

potentially suitable habitat, DRPT determined that the build alternatives could potentially impact 

seven federally endangered and/or threatened species and eight state-listed endangered and/or 

threatened species (Table 4.10-5 and 4.10-6). Potential impacts depend on the species and range, 

including, but not limited to, elimination of the species from the area, removal or alteration of 

habitat, elimination of access to important life stage areas, disruption of breeding season, or 

disturbance resulting in a species leaving the area. The build alternatives for the Fredericksburg 

Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), 

which would bisect forested habitat, wildlife corridors, and use rural areas with far less alteration, 

would have the greatest chance of impacting wildlife, including threatened and endangered 

species. All other alternatives would be in mostly urban or already disturbed, although in some 

cases naturalized, areas adjacent to the existing tracks. 

Coordination with USFWS and NMFS pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(ESA), as amended, for potential impacts to federally listed species would be conducted where 

required after the Draft EIS is published. Preliminary coordination with USFWS has consisted of 

obtaining the current list of federally listed threatened and endangered species that could 

potentially be found in the study area. DRPT anticipates that future coordination will cover the 

need for additional field surveys and discussion regarding the potential Project effects. 

Table 4.10-5: Potential for Federally Listed Species to be Affected by Project 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status* Conclusion Notes 

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C 

No species indicated; however, the tidal wetland in the waterfowl sanctuary may provide suitable habitat for sensitive jointvetch and is recommended for future surveys, if impacted by a build alternative. 

Alternative 2A 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon)

FE Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect 

Known or likely to occur within the Lower 

Aquia Creek subwatershed (VDGIF, 2014) 

Harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum)

FE Potential habitat does not appear 

to be present, and no suitable 

habitat was identified during field 

surveys; not likely to adversely 

affect. 

Known or likely to occur only in Stafford 

County (USFWS, 2014a) in the Lower Potomac 

(02070011) watershed (NatureServe, 2014) 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout 

Virginia 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

FT Habitat present, and no current 

survey conducted; may affect 

Habitat recorded during field surveys 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides)

FT Habitat present, and no current 

survey conducted; may affect 

Habitat recorded during field surveys 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-84 

Table 4.10-5: Potential for Federally Listed Species to be Affected by Project 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status* Conclusion Notes 

Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon)

FE Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect 

Existing populations in the Lower Rappahannock 

(02080104) watershed (NatureServe, 2014) 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis)

FE Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect 

Known or likely to occur in Caroline County 

(USFWS-ECOS, 2016) 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout 

Virginia 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides)

FT Habitat present, and no current 

survey conducted; may affect 

Habitat recorded during field surveys 

Alternative 4A 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon)

FE Species present; may affect Existing populations in the Mattaponi (02080105) 

watershed (NatureServe, 2014); Po River, 

upstream of this Project, has been listed by 

VDGIF as endangered waters for the dwarf 

wedgemussel; this species is known or likely to 

occur within the Poni River subwatershed 

(VDGIF, 2014); this species is known or likely to 

occur within the South Anna River–Cedar Creek 

subwatershed (VDGIF, 2014 and VDCR, 2014) 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis)

FE Species potentially present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect 

Known or likely to occur in Caroline County 

(USFWS-ECOS, 2016) 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Potential bat habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout 

Virginia 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata)

FT Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect 

There are historic records of the potential of 

this species occurring in the Campbell CreekMattaponi River subwatershed (VDCR, 2014) in 

Caroline County (USFWS, 2014a) crossed by 

this alternative area 

Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon)

FE Species present; may affect South Anna River has been listed by VDGIF as 

endangered waters for the dwarf wedgemussel; 

this species is known or likely to occur within 

the South Anna River–Cedar Creek 

subwatershed (VDGIF, 2014 and VDCR, 2014) 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Potential bat habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect 

Bat habitat was noted during field surveys in 

Carter Park; it is generally agreed by the 

regulatory agencies that this species can be 

found throughout Virginia 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Species potentially present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout Virginia 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

FT Species unlikely to be present in 

the project area 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout 

Virginia, but no habitat in in the Richmond area 

would be affected 

*FE – Federal Endangered; FT – Federal Threatened; SE – State Endangered; ST – State Threatened. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-85 

Table 4.10-6: Potential for State-Listed Species to be Affected by Project 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status* Conclusion Notes 

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C 

No species indicated; however, the tidal wetland in the waterfowl sanctuary may provide suitable habitat for sensitive jointvetch and is recommended for future surveys, if impacted by a build alternative. 

Alternative 2A 

Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus)

ST Species potentially present; 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

This species has been recorded in Huntly Meadows Park 

(CEDER-VDGIF); the Project is separated from Huntly 

Meadows Park by more than 1.5 miles of urban development 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

ST Habitat present, and no 

current survey 

conducted; may affect. 

Four wetlands recommended for further sensitive joint-vetch 

survey 

Small Whorled 

Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides)

SE Habitat present, and no 

current survey 

conducted; may affect. 

Habitat recorded during field surveys 

Wood Turtle 

(Glyptemys insculpta)

ST Species potentially present; 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

Known or likely to occur in the Cameron Run (VDGIF, 

2014b) subwatershed and the Accotink Creek-Gunston Cove 

subwatershed (VDGIF, 2014b and VDCR-NHD, 2014) 

Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C 

Green Floater

(Lasmigona subviridis)

ST Species present; may 

affect; coordination with 

VDGIF required 

The Rappahannock River has been listed by VDGIF as 

endangered waters for the green floater; coordination with 

VDGIF is required 

New Jersey Rush 

(Juncus caesariensis)

ST Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

There are historic records of the potential of this species 

occurring in the Poni River subwatershed (VDCR, 2014) in 

Caroline County (USFWS, 2014a and NatureServe, 2014) and 

the Lower Rappahannock (02080104) and Mattaponi 

(02080105) watersheds (NatureServe, 2014) 

Small Whorled 

Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides) 

SE Habitat present, and no 

current survey 

conducted; may affect 

Habitat recorded during field surveys 

Alternative 4A 

New Jersey Rush 

(Juncus caesariensis)

ST Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

There are historic records of the potential of this species 

occurring in the Poni River and Campbell Creek-Mattaponi 

River, Reedy Creek, and Polecat Creek subwatersheds 

(VDCR, 2014) in Caroline County (USFWS, 2014a and 

NatureServe, 2014) within the Mattaponi (02080105) 

watershed and the Lower Rappahannock (02080104) 

watershed (NatureServe, 2014) 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata)

FT Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

There are historic records of the potential of this species 

occurring in the Campbell Creek-Mattaponi River 

subwatershed (VDCR, 2014) in Caroline County (USFWS, 

2014a) crossed by this alternative area 

Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

No species indicated 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G 

Barking Treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa)

ST Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

This species is known or likely to occur in the Falling Creek 

(VDCR, 2014 and VDGIF, 2014b) and Proctors Creek-James 

River (VDGIF, 2014b) subwatersheds in Chesterfield County 

(NatureServe, 2014) 

Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus)

ST Species present; may 

affect; coordination with 

VDGIF required 

Several active nests were recorded in 2009 within 3 miles of 

this alternative area near River Front Plaza in Richmond 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

ST Species unlikely to be 

present in the project 

area 

It is generally agreed by the different regulatory agencies that 

this species can be found throughout Virginia, but no habitat 

in in the Richmond area would be affected 

*ST – State Threatened. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-86 

4.10.3.1 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed under Tier II of the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan 

for “Very High Conservation Need.” The Bald eagle is no longer listed as threatened, but this 

discussion was left in this section since it is still protected under some laws. Table 4.10-7 lists bald 

eagle nests that would have their buffer zones encroached on by construction of the Build 

Alternatives (Figure 4.10-2). Disturbance of nesting bald eagles is unlikely to occur if the 

following guidelines are followed: 

 Clearing, grubbing, and construction activities within 660 feet, but outside 330 feet, can 

be restricted to outside of the breeding season (mid-December to June), even if these 

activities are occurring within railroad right-of-way 

 A buffer of at least 660 feet can be maintained between all activities and the nest (including 

active and alternate nests) 

- If a similar activity is closer than 660 feet, then a distance buffer as close to the nest as 

the existing tolerated activity may be maintained 

 A buffer of at least 0.5 mile, or 1 mile in open areas, can be maintained for blasting and 

other activities that produce extremely loud noises, or restricted to outside the breeding 

season (USFWS, 2007) 

 Construction activities in Bald Eagle Concentration Areas may also negatively affect bald 

eagles. Bald eagles congregate in these locations for feeding and sheltering (roosting) 

because of their proximity to food sources. Construction activities may prevent bald 

eagles from foraging and roosting in these locations, resulting in disturbance that may stress 

or relocate the species to less optimal habitat. Permanent alterations at these sites can 

eliminate or reduce essential feeding and sheltering habitat. Bald Eagle Concentration Areas 

are intersected near Aquia Creek, Potomac River, Quantico Creek, Powells Creek, Neabsco 

Creek, and Occoquan River. TOY restrictions are listed in Table 4.10-8. 

Nesting Bald Eagles 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-87 

Table 4.10-7: Number of Bald Eagle Nests within Buffer Zones 

Alternative Area Alternative 

2,640 feet or up to 5,280 feet 

in open areas1 660 feet2 330 feet3

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 18 8 4 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A 1 – – 

6B–A-Line 1 – – 

6B–S-Line 1 – – 

6C 1 – – 

6D – – – 

6E 1 – – 

6F – – – 

6G 1 – – 

Source: CCB, 2016. 

Notes; 1. For projects that have blasting or other loud noise components. 2. Clearing, external construction, and landscaping between 330 and 

660 feet should be done outside breeding season. 3. 330 feet, or as close as existing tolerated activity of similar scope. 

None of the Build Alternatives are within bald eagle nest buffer zones in Alternative Areas 1, 3, 4, or 5. 

Table 4.10-8: Listed Time-of-Year Restrictions for Threatened and Endangered Species with 

Potential to Occur in the DC2RVA Corridor 

Species Status Recommended Time-of-Year Restrictions 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon) 

FE March 15–May 31; August 15–October 15 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) 

FE The standard TOY restrictions are June 1–July 31 for the “pup season,” April 15–

September 15 outside of the 5.5-mile-radius buffer for hibernacula, and April 1–

November 15 within a hibernaculum buffer 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis) 

FT Compliance with the USFWS ESA 4(d) rule. VDGIF’s standard recommendations are 

to prohibit tree removal within 150 feet of a documented maternity roost from June 

1–July 31 and to prohibit tree removal within 0.25 mile of a documented hibernaculum 

Bald Eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

ST Nest Sites: December 15–July 15; Concentration Areas and Roost Sites: Summer: May 

15–August 31; Winter: December 15–March 15 

Barking Treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa) 

ST None listed 

Green Floater 

(Lasmigona subviridis) 

ST April 15–June 15 (release of glochidia); August 15–September 30 (spawning) 

Peregrine Falcon (Falco 

peregrinus) 

ST February 15–July 15 for activities within 600 feet of nest 

Wood Turtle 

(Glyptemys insculpta) 

ST For instream work: October 1–March 31; For work within 900 feet of stream (zone of 

concern): April 1–September 30. Maintain undisturbed naturally vegetated buffer of at 

least 300 feet (preferably larger) on stream 

Source: VDGIF, 2016. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-88 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-89 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-90 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-91 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-92 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternative 3C 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-93 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, 6G
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-94 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, 6G 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-95 

4.10.3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

DRPT will coordinate with USFWS, EPA, VDCR, VDGIF, and other regulatory agencies 

regarding habitat and wildlife—rare, threatened, and endangered species, bald eagles, migratory 

birds, anadromous fish, and SAV in particular—to ensure impacts are avoided to the extent 

practicable through the final design process and appropriate mitigation is developed where 

impacts are unavoidable. DRPT will reduce the likelihood of adverse effects through use of these 

measures: 

 Minimizing the LOD through design 

 Following appropriate BMPs for sediment and erosion control during construction 

 Using infiltration stormwater management 

 Minimizing clearing and grubbing 

 Prompt reseeding of disturbed areas with native vegetation 

 TOY restrictions (Table 4.10-8) 

Bald Eagle 

According to the USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to minimize disturbance, 

activities should be conducted outside of the breeding season, if possible, and kept as far away from 

nests as possible. Loud and disruptive activities should be limited to periods when eagles are not 

nesting, and activity between the nest and nearest foraging area should be avoided. General 

guidance for Category A activities, such as constructing roads and other linear facilities, and 

Category H, such as blasting and other loud, intermittent noises, is outlined in Table 4.10-9 (USFWS, 

2007). It may be necessary to also obtain a permit issued under the Bald and Golden Eagle Act (16 

United States Code [U.S.C.] 668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended, for activities located in Bald Eagle 

Concentration Areas. This would be determined during the design process. Specific avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation would be developed in coordination with USFWS and VDGIF and 

may require development of an eagle conservation plan. 

Table 4.10-9: Bald Eagle Management Guidelines 

If there is no similar activity 

within 1 mile of the nest 

If there is similar activity closer 

than 1 mile from the nest 

Category A activities, 

such as constructing 

roads and other linear 

facilities 

If the activity 

will be visible 

from the nest 

660 feet. Landscape buffers are 

recommended. 

660 feet, or as close as existing 

tolerated activity of similar scope. 

Landscape buffers are recommended. 

If the activity 

will not be 

visible from the 

nest 

330 feet. Clearing, external 

construction, and landscaping 

between 330 and 660 feet should 

be done outside breeding season. 

330 feet, or as close as existing 

tolerated activity of similar scope. 

Clearing, external construction, and 

landscaping within 660 feet should be 

done outside breeding season. 

Category H, such as 

blasting and other loud, 

intermittent noises 

Avoid blasting and other activities that produce extremely loud noises within 0.5 mile of active 

nests (or within 1 mile in open areas), unless greater tolerance to the activity (or similar activity) 

has been demonstrated by the eagles in the nesting area. 

Source: USFWS, 2007. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-96

4.11 COMMUNITY RESOURCES 

4.11.1 Economic Effects 

The Build Alternatives would have direct effects on economic activity through business/ 

commercial relocations, as shown in Table 4.11-1. 

Table 4.11-1: Commercial Relocations by Build Alternative 

Alternative 

Area Alternative 

Stafford Count

y

Hanover Count

y

Henrico Count

y

City of Richmond 

 Total 

O GC GC GC GC S/W M/A O 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3B – – – – – – – – 1

3C – – – – – – – – 1

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A – – 1 – – – – – 1

5A–Ashcake – – 1 – – – – – 1

5B – – 1 – – – – – 1

5B–Ashcake – – 1 – – – – – 1

5C – – 1 – – – – – 1

5C–Ashcake – – 1 – – – – – 1

5D–Ashcake – – 1 – – – – – 1

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

6A – – – 5 1 0 4 0 10

6B–A-Line – – – 5 2 4 7 0 18

6B–S-Line – – – 5 0 2 2 1 10

6C – – – 5 1 1 5 3 15

6D – – – 5 0 2 2 1 10

6E – – – 5 1 0 4 0 10

6F – – – 5 0 2 2 1 10

6G – – – 5 0 2 2 1 10

This table includes only the Build Alternatives with commercial relocations. 

O=Other; GC=General Commercial; S/W=Storage/Warehousing; M/A=Manufacturing/Auto Repair 

The nonresidential relocations were broken down into types of businesses with similar relocation/ 

structural needs: general commercial, storage and warehousing, manufacturing, and other. The 

category “Other” includes an apartment building as well as a variety of government properties (city, 

county, or university-owned). The government properties include a Department of Motor Vehicles, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-97 

Commonwealth of Virginia Workers’ Compensation Department, and City of Richmond Department 

of Public Works properties. The general commercial businesses within the Build Alternatives include 

technical services and entertainment services. The warehousing and storage facilities include food 

and container storage. The manufacturing facilities include auto service and repair, and electrical 

manufacturing and repair. In Alternative Area 5, the Town of Ashland could be adversely affected 

economically by Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake. There are 

few business relocations, due to these Build Alternatives, but the short-term effects of construction 

within town, particularly central downtown along Railroad Avenue and Center Street, could cause 

local businesses to suffer loss of commerce and, potentially, closure. In addition to the short-term 

effects of construction, Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake could close South Center 

Street between England Street and Maiden Street. Access to the businesses and residences would still 

be provided from other public rights-of-way. However, the long-term effects of the closure and 

change in access could also cause loss of commerce and potential closure of businesses. This in turn 

could cause negative effects on the economic vitality of downtown Ashland. 

Based on the number of nonresidential relocations and the types of businesses potentially being 

relocated, adequate replacement properties would be available for relocation purposes. The 

acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of displaced persons and businesses would be 

conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and 24 VAC 30 - 41. DRPT assures that relocation resources 

would be available to all displaced businesses and nonprofit entities without discrimination. 

4.11.2 Neighborhood and Community Effects 

4.11.2.1 Community Effects 

DRPT assessed impacts to communities based on potential right-of-way acquisition of residences 

and community facilities, partial acquisitions of parcels, potential changes in community 

cohesion, changes in access to community facilities, and changes in access for emergency services. 

More-detailed information on right-of-way acquisition and relocation can be found in Section 

4.12, Title VI and Environmental Justice. Effects based on changes to the transportation network 

are summarized in the next section, discussed in the Transportation Section (Section 4.15), and 

discussed in more detail in the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S). 

The No Build Alternative would not require any right-of-way acquisition or result in any 

neighborhood and community effects. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), DRPT does not expect direct effects to communities from 

relocations and right-of-way acquisition. There are no relocations, and none of the Build 

Alternatives require more than 1.5 acres of right-of-way. There are no adverse effects to 

community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency services. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), Build Alternative 2A would require two residential 

relocations in part of the Belmont Bay community along Railroad Avenue (Prince William 

County). Access to this community is currently through the condominiums at Belmont Bay and 

would not change under the Build Alternative 2A. DRPT has determined that there would be no 

adverse effects to community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency services. 

The community of Brooke (Stafford County) would be affected by Build Alternative 2A. Partial 

acquisition of residential property would occur due to an additional roadway connection north 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-98 

of and parallel to the CSXT line to continue to provide access to the street network for residents 

via Brooke Road and Andrew Chapel Road. DRPT has determined that access to and from the 

area for emergency services, school transportation, and religious facilities on Andrew Chapel 

Road would not be adversely affected by Build Alternative 2A. Additional effects to this 

community include partial acquisition of residential property around the Eskimo Hill Road 

crossing of the CSXT line. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), Build Alternatives 3A and 3B that pass through town would 

not require residential relocations, and only partial acquisition of primarily residential parcels would 

be required in the communities in this area. DRPT has determined that the Fredericksburg Bypass 

(Build Alternative 3C) would adversely affect the community of Little Falls (Stafford County). The 

adverse effects would be due to partial acquisition of residential parcels on Little Falls Road and 

Forest Lane Road, as well as an increase in the frequency of trains along the existing Dahlgren Spur. 

There are currently very few train movements on this line (one per day). Additional freight trains 

would use the bypass as part of future train operations. Existing crossings of these roads would be 

improved with median treatments to provide additional safety measures for residents. 

The communities that would be affected by the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) 

include the residential development along Sandy Lane Drive, Swan Lane, Thornton Rolling Road, 

and Patriot Lane and the community of Summit (Spotsylvania County). As rural communities, 

they may not be as well defined as urban or suburban communities, but they would still be 

adversely affected by residential relocations. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) 

would bisect the residential development along Thornton Rolling Road and Patriot Lane. 

Community cohesion could be adversely affected by this alternative. None of these communities 

are currently on a rail line, and the introduction of a rail line and freight rail traffic would 

undoubtedly result in an adverse effect on this currently rural area. DRPT does not, however, 

anticipate adverse effects to community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency 

services since roadway crossings along the new alignment bypass would be grade-separated. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), to the east and south of Carmel Church and Patersons 

Corner, access to the residential development along Railroad Lane (Caroline County) would not 

be affected by Build Alternative 4A since only one low-volume roadway (Colemans Mill Road) 

would be closed. DRPT has determined that there would be no adverse effects to community 

facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency services. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), within the Town of Ashland, the proximity of the community to 

the existing CSXT rail line makes adverse effects to the community difficult to avoid. The Build 

Alternatives that pass through town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 

5D–Ashcake) would have similar effects on the community. There would be no residential 

relocations, one commercial relocation, and partial acquisitions of parcels. The communities 

affected include downtown Ashland, southern Ashland, Gwathmey, and Elmont. 

The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would result in 20 residential 

relocations, 1 community facility relocation (Calvary Pentecostal Tabernacle and camp), 2 

commercial relocations, and partial acquisition of more than 50 parcels. The communities affected 

include Blunts Bridge Road, Independence Road, Ashcake Road and Wildwood Boulevard, and 

Elmont. As noted above, one community facility would be adversely affected, but DRPT does not 

expect any other adverse effects to community facilities, access to community facilities, or access 

for emergency services since roadway crossings along the new alignment bypass would be gradeseparated. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-99 

Within Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), direct effects to communities from residential relocations 

would occur in Laurel Park in Henrico County and in McGuire in the City of Richmond. The 

Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) would affect both communities through these residential relocations and 

the relocation of a church, the Rock Christian Center. The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line 

between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) would 

only affect the community of Laurel Park. One community facility would be adversely affected, 

but no other adverse effects to community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for 

emergency services are expected. 

More-detailed information on community effects can be found in the Community Impact 

Assessment Technical Report (Appendix Q). 

4.11.2.2 Effects from Changes to the Transportation Network 

Effects on communities from changes to the transportation network have been assessed based on 

physical changes to the roadway network and increased intercity passenger rail service in the 

DC2RVA corridor. The methodology used to determine the proposed crossing improvements at 

each at-grade crossing is provided in the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S). Types of 

crossing treatments were identified at each at-grade highway-rail crossing to improve safety and 

road and rail traffic flow (see Section 4.15.2.1). Most existing public at-grade crossings are 

proposed to remain at-grade with the addition of four-quadrant gates or gates with center median 

treatment; there are fewer locations with proposed grade separations and closures. New grade 

separations would reduce vehicular delay at those locations. DRPT evaluated all crossing 

improvement effects on connectivity and accessibility (see Section 4.15.2.2) and completed a 

crossing closure diversion analysis (see Section 4.15.2.3) to determine the effects the proposed 

roadway closures would have on traffic operations. Crossings proposed to be closed are typically 

lower volume roadways with nearby alternate new or existing access across the rail corridor, or 

were determined due to safety concerns and/or the requirements of the physical or operational 

infrastructure of the Project. All new crossings of roads as part of the Build Alternatives would be 

grade-separated, except for two new at-grade roadway crossings that are proposed as part of the 

station improvement designs for Build Alternative 6C. Additionally, some existing public atgrade crossings would be grade-separated which would reduce vehicular delay at those 

locations. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), DRPT does not expect direct effects to the local transportation 

network as a result of construction of the proposed Project because there are no at-grade crossings 

in this alternative area. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), Build Alternative 2A would not change access to the 

communities of Harbor View and Colchester (Fairfax County), via Furnace Road, and would 

therefore not adversely affect these communities. The community of Brooke (Stafford County) 

would be affected by Build Alternative 2A. Mount Hope Church Road would be closed at the 

CSXT rail line, and an additional roadway connection would be added north of and parallel to 

the CSXT line to provide access to the street network for residents via Brooke Road and Andrew 

Chapel Road. More detail appears in the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S). DRPT has 

determined that access to and from the area for emergency services, school transportation, and 

the religious facilities in Brooke would not be adversely affected by Build Alternative 2A. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-100 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), DRPT expects that the Project will result in direct effects 

to the transportation network. The improved station at Fredericksburg would provide better 

access to the transportation network with a larger station building, additional parking, and 

improved handicapped parking, which are all positive effects. The end of Patriot Lane 

(Spotsylvania County) would also be acquired as part of right-of-way acquisition for the 

Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C). The roadway would terminate at the new wye 

junction required for joining the bypass to the main line. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), the Colemans Mill Road (Caroline County) crossing of 

the CSXT rail line would be closed under Build Alternative 4A. DRPT does not expect adverse 

effects to access for emergency response, school transportation, or the roadway network as a 

result of this road closure. The north side of Colemans Mill Road would continue to be accessed 

by Rogers Clark Boulevard. The south side would maintain access through Dry Bridge Road to 

Colemans Mill Road. Access to the eastern section of Railroad Lane (Caroline County) would 

remain in place under Build Alternative 4A. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), closure of College Avenue/Henry Clay Street would occur under 

Build Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 5C if the existing platforms at the Ashland Station were extended. 

DRPT expects that there would be no adverse effects to access to community facilities or for 

emergency response, school transportation, or access to the roadway network as a result of this 

road closure. West Vaughan Road would provide an alternative for emergency medical services 

and would be improved with a grade separation under the Build Alternatives that pass through 

town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake). This would improve 

safety and emergency response time. The Volunteer Rescue Squad on Duncan Street would still 

have access to both sides of the rail line, as would the Ashland Police Department on England Street. 

Closure of Independence Road at West Patrick Henry Road would occur under the Ashland Bypass 

(Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake). An alternate alignment that uses existing West Patrick 

Henry Road and Blanton Road would be less than 1 mile. 

DRPT does, however, expect adverse effects due to road closure in Ashland. Closure of the 

northbound portion of South Railroad Avenue between England Street and Maiden Lane, due to 

the addition of a third track, under Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, would 

adversely affect the community of Ashland and, in particular, the community cohesion of the area 

of town south of England Street. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), direct effects to the transportation network are expected as a 

result of construction of the Build Alternatives. The station improvements at Staples Mill would 

provide expanded mobility and better access to the transportation network with an expanded 

building, additional parking, and a designated pick-up and drop-off area, which would all be 

positive effects of the Project. Some at-grade roadway crossings would also be closed under the 

Build Alternatives, which are summarized in the following paragraphs. 

The Boulevard single-station alternative (Build Alternative 6B–S-Line) includes the closure of the 

Ownby Lane/Hermitage Road intersection in the Diamond/Newtowne West area to 

accommodate the Hermitage Road grade separation. The area is generally in commercial and 

industrial uses. Access to Ownby Lane would still be available via Overbrook Road and Botetourt 

Street. 

The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) include the closure of Bassett Avenue in Westover . Access to the east 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-101 

side of this crossing would still be available via Westover Hills Boulevard. Access to the west side of 

the crossing would still be available through Jahnke Road, which would be improved with fourquadrant gates to increase safety at the crossing. 

The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) include the closure of the Terminal Avenue at-grade crossing in Hickory 

Hill. Access on the eastern side of Terminal Avenue is available via Belt Boulevard. Access on the 

western side of Terminal Avenue is available via Hopkins Road. A signal study of the intersection of 

Terminal Avenue and Hopkins Road would also occur under these alternatives. 

The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) include the closure of Thurston Road in the community of Chimney 

Corner. Access to the western side of Thurston Road would still be available via Hopkins Road. 

Access to the eastern side of Thurston Road would still be available via Dorsey Road. Access to 

and from the community for emergency services and school transportation would not be 

adversely affected by the alternatives. 

The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) include the closure of St James Street and North Second 

Street/Valley Road between the communities of Gilpin and Southern Barton Heights. Based on 

the proximity to and connections to the existing roadway network via North First Street and 

North Fifth Street, access to and from the communities for emergency services and school 

transportation would not be adversely affected by the alternatives. 

The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) include the closure of the at-grade crossing at Dale 

Avenue/Trenton Avenue in the community of Ampthill Heights. It primarily provides access to 

the DuPont plant, and alternate access is available. 

The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) include the closure of Brinkley Road in Chimney Corner. 

Access to Brinkley Road would still be available via Dorsey Road and Thurston Road via Hopkins 

Road. 

Old Lane in the community of Centralia would be closed under all Build Alternatives. Access to 

and from the community for school transportation would not be adversely affected by the 

alternatives. An increase in response time for emergency services could occur if the response were 

from Fire Station 17 in Centralia, but it would be less than a 5-minute increase. If the response 

were from Fire Station 1, there would be no difference in response time. 

4.11.3 Community Facilities and Services 

The No Build Alternative would have no direct effects on community facilities. 

In Alternative Areas 1 through 4, the Build Alternatives would have no direct effects on community 

facilities. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), one community facility, the Calvary Pentecostal Tabernacle 

camp in Hanover County, would be relocated due to Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake. The 

facility would be relocated in a manner that would enable access to remain similar to the existing 

access. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-102 

Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, and 5B–Ashcake would require a minor temporary 

easement of two parcels from the Gwathmey Baptist Church. The temporary easement would not 

affect activities at the church, and DRPT does not expect the temporary easement to have adverse 

effects to the church. 

All Build Alternative would require a temporary easement from Patrick Henry Branch of the 

YMCA in Ashland due to alignment changes along Ashcake Road. DRPT does not expect the 

temporary easement to have adverse effects to the facility. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), the Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard 

and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) would require the relocation of the 

Rock Christian Center as a part of the grade separation of the intersection of Broad Rock 

Boulevard and the CSXT rail line. The facility would be relocated in a manner that would enable 

access to remain similar to the existing access. In addition, partial acquisition of the parcel 

containing Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center would also occur in this 

location. The partial acquisition of this parcel is minor in nature (0.10 acre) and would not affect 

the functioning of the center. 

4.11.4 Right-of-Way and Relocations 

The acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of displacees would take place in accordance 

with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 4601). Data and information were collected on social demographics and potential 

relocations, including individual tax parcel data, within the Build Alternatives. This information 

was compiled from city/county tax parcel databases, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 

mapping, aerial photos, the United States Census website, GIS databases, conceptual 

drawings/engineering, and field inspections. All field inspections were conducted from within 

public right-of-way. Given that potential property effects are only being estimated at this time, 

local citizens/property owners were not contacted for any data to determine family size, 

household size, property value, owner/renter status, or any other demographic information. 

Similarly, individual businesses potentially subject to relocation were not contacted to determine 

their number of employees. These data were estimated using the sources noted above. 

Potential relocations were determined based on overlaying the estimated LOD of the Build 

Alternatives on county/city tax parcel digital data through the use of GIS. The individual parcel 

data were then compiled, and the area that may be acquired with implementation of a Build 

Alternative was computed. Potential relocations were identified as residential 

(individuals/families), community facilities, and commercial. The relocations can be classified as 

total acquisitions or partial acquisitions: 

 Total Acquisition: This occurs when the primary improvement (house, business, 

nonprofit, or farm) is within the right-of-way or access to the parcel is removed and cannot 

be restored. The owner is compensated for the fair market value of the entire parcel and 

provided relocation assistance. 

 Partial Acquisition: This occurs when a portion of a parcel is acquired and that portion 

does not include a primary improvement. The owner is compensated for the fair market 

value of the portion of their parcel and minor improvements that would be acquired. 

This document represents a preliminary examination of the potential relocations; therefore, direct 

contact with individual residents, landowners, and business owners did not occur. Coordination 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-103 

with affected property owners will begin with the Public Hearing and continue into the final 

design process. Social and economic characteristics of the displaced population are based on 

United States Census data from the 2009 - 2013 American Community Survey (ACS) and from 

the National Center for Education Statistics. 

Residential relocations by Build Alternative are detailed in Table 4.11-2. The No Build Alternative 

requires no residential relocations. Specific communities within which these relocations occur 

were discussed in Section 4.11.2.1. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington) Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would have no residential 

relocations. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), the single Build Alternative 2A would have two 

residential relocations. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would 

have 19 residential relocations. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), the single Build Alternative 4A would have no 

residential relocations. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) 

would have 21 residential relocations. These alternatives would relocate one community facility, 

the Calvary Pentecostal Tabernacle camp in Hanover County. This facility would be relocated 

due to severing the parcel and lack of access to the remaining part of the parcel. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), residential relocations would occur under all Build 

Alternatives. The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, and 6E would have 12 relocations. Build Alternative 6C, which also 

uses the A-Line, has 12 single-family residence relocations and an apartment building relocation 

with 100 units. The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and 

Centralia (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) would have seven relocations. 

Right-of-way acquisitions may be further minimized as design progresses. Easements may be 

used in lieu of acquiring new right-of-way for some properties. Temporary easements may also 

be needed on adjacent property to gain access to the existing rail line and right-of-way during 

construction activities and for construction staging. If necessary, these temporary easements 

could be obtained for a short duration, and the land would be returned to its original condition 

before easement lease termination. 

DRPT has the ability and, if necessary, is willing to provide housing of last resort, including the 

purchase of land or dwellings; repair of existing dwellings to meet decent, safe, and sanitary 

conditions; relocation or remodeling of dwellings purchased by DRPT; or construction of new 

dwellings. DRPT assures that all displaced families and individuals would be relocated to 

suitable replacement housing, and that all replacement housing would be fair housing available 

to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and would be within 

the financial means of the displacees. Each person would be given enough time to negotiate for 

and obtain possession of replacement housing. No residential occupants would be required to 

move from property needed for the Build Alternatives until comparable decent, safe, and sanitary 

replacement dwellings have been made available to them.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-104 

Table 4.11-2: Residential Relocations by Build Alternative 

Alternative Area Alternative 

City/County 

Arlington County City of Alexandria Fairfax Count

y

Prince William Count

y

Stafford County City of Fredericksburg Spotsylvania Count

y

Caroline County Hanover County Henrico County City of Richmond Chesterfield Count

y

Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

1A 0 – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

1B 0 – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

1C 0 – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

Area 2: Northern 

Virginia (Long Bridge 

to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A – 0 0 2 0 – – – – – – – 2 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A – – – – 0 0 0 – – – – – 0 

3B – – – – 0 0 0 – – – – – 0 

3C – – – – — — 18 0 – – – – 19 

Area 4: Central 

Virginia (Crossroads 

to Doswell) 

4A – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

5A–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

5B – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

5B–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

5C – – – – – – – – – – – – 21 

5C–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – – – – 21 

5D–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

Area 6: Richmond (I295 to Centralia) 6A – – – – – – – – – 7 5 0 12 

6B–A-Line – – – – – – – – – 7 5 0 12 

6B–S-Line – – – – – – – – – 7 0 0 7 

6C – – – – – – – – – 7 105 0 112 

6D – – – – – – – – – 7 0 0 7 

6E – – – – – – – – – 7 5 0 12 

6F – – – – – – – – – 7 0 0 7 

6G – – – – – – – – – 7 0 0 7 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-105 

The acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of displacees would be in accordance with the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. 

Assurance is given that relocation resources would be available to all residential, business, farm, 

and nonprofit displacees without discrimination. 

4.11.5 Land Use Planning 

4.11.5.1 Changes in Land Use 

The No Build Alternative requires no right-of-way acquisition; therefore, it requires no land use 

conversion and has no direct impacts to land use. 

The Build Alternatives require different amounts of right-of-way acquisition (Table 4.11-3). The 

transition of these land uses to transportation use is a direct effect, but it is an extension of the 

existing adjacent transportation land use and is not out of character with the area. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), the only land use in transition to a transportation use is currently 

vacant. The transition of this land to a transportation use would not be incompatible with the 

current use. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), the greatest amount of land use transition to a 

transportation use is from residential uses. The transition of residential use to a transportation 

use would be incompatible; however, it is an extension of the existing adjacent transportation 

land use and is not out of character with the area. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), Build Alternatives 3A and 3B pass through town and 

involve transition from commercial/office and residential uses to a transportation land use. 

This conversion is not incompatible with the current land use. The Fredericksburg Bypass 

(Build Alternative 3C) bypasses the City of Fredericksburg to the east. It begins in Stafford 

County and is along the Dahlgren Spur, an existing rail line that is surrounded by commercial 

land uses at the junction with the main rail line. At Ferry Farm, the land use along Build 

Alternative 3C transitions to residential uses, and then rural residential and rural uses, with 

some commercial uses near the former Renaissance Faire. Build Alternative 3C turns south and 

crosses the Rappahannock River at the Spotsylvania County/Caroline County line. The land 

use in both counties along this alternative is predominantly agricultural, forested, and rural 

residential. Stafford County comprehensive planning is focusing growth within the urban 

service areas and does not recommend “increasing land use intensity” in other areas (Stafford 

County, 2014). Build Alternative 3C is not in one of the urban service areas. The Caroline 

County comprehensive plan states that agricultural and forested uses are “the primary land 

uses to be protected” (Caroline County, 2010). The Spotsylvania County comprehensive plan 

fosters “the preservation of agricultural and forestal land” and states that “the primary goal of 

the Future Land Use Element in the rural portion of the County is the preservation of farms, 

forestland, and open space” (Spotsylvania County, 2013). Based on the current land use 

planning within these counties, conversion of the existing land uses along Build Alternative 3C 

to a transportation land use is not compatible with the adjacent land uses. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), the greatest amount of land use transitioning to 

transportation use is currently in agricultural use. The transition of this land to a transportation 

use would be incompatible with the current use. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-106 

Table 4.11-3: Land Use Acreage within Build Alternatives 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Agricultural Commercial/Office Industrial Institutional Transportation Preserved Open Space Residential Vacant 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A – – – – – – – 0 

1B – – – – – – – 1.5 

1C – – – – – – – 0.4 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 4.3 1.9 0.63 1.96 – 10.2 12.1 0.1 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A 0.2 0.3 – 1.9 – 0.05 0.4 – 

3B 0.2 10.7 – 2.0 – 3.4 12.6 – 

3C 66.4 22.0 – 1.9 – 5.6 75.2 – 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A 0.9 0.1 – 0.1 0.3 – 0.1 – 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 4.2 0.5 2.7 0.5 11.2 – 3.6 – 

5A–Ashcake 4.2 – 3.8 – 9.7 – 3.6 – 

5B 4.2 0.5 2.7 2.2 15.2 – 5.5 – 

5B–Ashcake 4.2 0.1 3.8 1.9 15.3 – 5.5 – 

5C 150.8 0.5 6.5 0.5 37.3 – 0.6 – 

5C–Ashcake 150.8 – 7.6 – 35.8 – 0.5 – 

5D–Ashcake 4.2 0.4 3.9 1.4 21.1 – 6.3 – 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – 8.5 17.1 0.2 – 0.2 19.5 6.8 

6B–A-Line – 16.0 25.7 0.2 – 0.2 19.5 7.6 

6B–S-Line – 8.7 22.5 0.2 – 0.01 4.8 12.7 

6C – 38.6 18.4 7.1 – 0.4 21.3 7.3 

6D – 9.5 17.7 0.2 – 0.01 4.6 13.0 

6E – 9.2 19.9 0.2 – 0.4 19.5 9.4 

6F – 12.4 23.1 0.2 – 0.01 4.6 14.1 

6G – 11.8 22.2 0.2 – 0.01 4.6 13.6 

Source: City and County Land Use GIS databases. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), the greatest amount of land use transitioning to a transportation 

use for Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake is from land already 

in transportation use, such as the additional right-of-way required along Railroad Avenue. The 

transition of this land to a transportation use would not be incompatible with the current use. The 

Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) to the west of the Town of Ashland lies 

completely within Hanover County. The Ashland Bypass alternatives begin north of town and turn 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-107 

southwest and then southeast to return to the main rail line south of Gwathmey. The land use along 

the bypass alternatives is currently in agricultural use. The Hanover County comprehensive plan 

states that in the existing agricultural land use category, such as along the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), “appropriate uses would be farming, forestry, Agricultural 

Forestal Districts, public or semi-public uses that serve the community,” or rural residential uses. 

Based on the current land use planning within the county, conversion of existing land uses along 

the Ashland Bypass to a transportation land use is not compatible with the adjacent land uses. An 

existing Agricultural/Forestal District, the Stanley District, is also within Build Alternatives 5C and 

5C–Ashcake and is adversely affected by those alternatives (see Section 4.3, Agricultural Lands). 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), the greatest amount of land use transitioning to transportation 

use for most of the Build Alternatives is currently in commercial and industrial use. The transition 

of this land to a transportation use would not be incompatible with the current use. The singlestation Broad Street alternative (Build Alternative 6C) involves transition of almost 40 acres of 

commercial/office land use to a transportation use. This is primarily near the historic Broad Street 

Station. 

4.11.5.2 Compatibility with Future Land Use 

Many of the local jurisdictions have directly addressed the importance of rail service, and in some 

cases this particular Project, to local and regional mobility in their respective comprehensive 

planning processes. In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), future land use adjacent to the Build 

Alternatives is expected to remain in a similar use to current uses. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), in Prince William County, future land use is projected 

to intensify within the Development Area (where development has already occurred) and remain 

similar to existing land uses within the Rural Area. The single Build Alternative 2A is compatible 

with these land uses. Within Stafford County, future land use is expected to stay similar to 

existing land use, with development intensifying in the Urban Service Areas. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), Build Alternatives 3A and 3B, which pass through 

Fredericksburg, are compatible with future land uses. In the City of Fredericksburg, future land 

use is expected to remain similar to existing land use, due to the city’s developed nature. Build 

Alternatives 3A and 3B are compatible with these land uses. In Spotsylvania and Caroline 

counties, future land use within Build Alternatives 3A and 3B is expected to remain similar to the 

existing rural residential and agricultural/forested uses. In both counties, I-95 and the CSXT rail 

line are acknowledged as important transportation corridors. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build 

Alternative 3C) is also compatible with future land uses for those sections along existing rail. The 

7.1-mile new alignment portion of this bypass alternative is inconsistent with the future rural 

land use planned for that area. However, DRPT does not expect Build Alternative 3C to affect 

future land use outside of the Project right-of-way., 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), future land use in Caroline County is discussed in 

Alternative Area 3. In Hanover County, future land use is projected to remain similar to existing 

land uses, while providing “orderly growth” (Hanover County, 2012). 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), the Build Alternatives, other than the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternative 5C and Build Alternative C–Ashcake), are compatible with future land uses. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), existing land uses surrounding the Build Alternatives are 

expected to remain similar. The Build Alternatives are compatible with these uses. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-108 

4.11.5.3 Compatibility with Multimodal Transportation Planning 

Many of the intercity passenger stations along the DC2RVA corridor have direct connections to 

local and regional transit. Particularly, all intercity passenger rail stations in Northern Virginia 

share service with VRE. Other stations in Northern Virginia have convenient or direct connection 

to the WMATA, including Franconia-Springfield, Alexandria, Crystal City, L’Enfant Plaza and 

Washington Union Station. In Richmond, Main Street Station has multiple local and regional bus 

services and the planned Broad Street bus rapid transit system. These multimodal connections 

can help offset vehicular traffic at these stations. 

Many of the jurisdictions have recognized the importance of rail and multimodal transportation 

options within their transportation networks to residents, local businesses, regional connections, 

and economic vitality. In several of the jurisdictions, improved passenger rail and planning for it 

is specifically mentioned (Fairfax County, Stafford County, the City of Fredericksburg, Caroline 

County, the Town of Ashland, the City of Richmond, and Chesterfield County). Within the 

counties that have existing rail stations, focusing new development, particularly transit-oriented, 

in these areas is a priority. 

Nevertheless, two entities, the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 

and the Hanover County Board of Supervisors, have expressed opposition to the Fredericksburg 

Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), 

respectively. Because these alternatives are not supported by specific government-entity 

resolutions, they are not compatible with planning in these areas. 

4.12 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

The environmental justice analysis is based on whether the percentage of minority or low-income 

populations within a census tract impacted by an alternative is greater than the percentage of 

minority or low-income populations within that census tract’s county. For example, Fairfax 

County has a minority population of 46.11 percent. If the percentage of minority population in a 

census tract in Fairfax County is higher than 46.11 percent, the tract has the potential to contain 

an environmental justice population. Instead of a regional population across the entire corridor, 

this method provides a more accurate representation of potential environmental justice 

populations in diverse areas such as the DC2RVA corridor. Data and information from other 

sources, such as free and reduced school lunch programs and the public involvement process, 

have also been used to refine the identification of potential environmental justice communities 

not identified by United States Census data. The number of relocations, changes in community 

cohesion, relocations of community facilities, changes of access to these facilities, changes in 

response times for emergency services, and noise and vibration effects are all examined to assess 

effects. The trigger for an environmental justice effect is defined as “disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects” (EO 12898). These effects are then compared to 

impacts in those census tracts that do not meet the thresholds for environmental justice 

populations. 

The U.S. DOT definition of Adverse Effects is “the totality of significant individual or cumulative 

human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which 

may include, but are not limited to: bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death; air, noise, and 

water pollution and soil contamination; destruction or disruption of man-made or natural 

resources; destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of community 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-109 

cohesion or a community's economic vitality; destruction or disruption of the availability of 

public and private facilities and services; vibration; adverse employment effects; displacement of 

persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations; increased traffic congestion, isolation, 

exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from 

the broader community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, 

benefits of DOT programs, policies, or activities” (U.S. DOT, 5610.2[a]). 

The U.S. DOT definition of disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and lowincome populations is an Adverse Effect that: 

1. “is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, or 

2. will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is 

appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be 

suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population” (U.S. DOT, 

5610.2[a]). 

4.12.1 Corridor-Wide Impacts 

The No Build Alternative requires no right-of-way acquisition; therefore, it requires no 

relocations and has no direct adverse impacts to Title VI or environmental justice populations. 

Under the No Build Alternative, beneficial impacts also would not be realized. Congestion and 

lack of mobility would continue to affect individuals and communities. These problems also 

would continue to impact businesses and economic activity along the DC2RVA corridor, which 

would, in turn, result in additional impacts to individuals and communities. 

Under all Build Alternatives, more-frequent and more-reliable intercity passenger rail service in 

the DC2RVA corridor would provide better access and mobility to all communities and 

populations, including environmental justice populations. Access to a wider geographic area for 

educational, medical, and employment opportunities would be improved as well. 

4.12.2 Community-Level Impacts 

United States Census information and preliminary relocation data was supplemented with 

information from public involvement activities for this Project and from federal education 

statistical information, and regional and local agency planning information on communities. 

4.12.2.1 Relocations and Displacements 

Seven of the Build Alternatives that significantly alter the natural or railroad operating 

environments on the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), or CSXT A-Line in the City of Richmond (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) have the potential to impact six census tracts with low-income and 

minority populations, out of a total of 10 census tracts with residential relocations (Table 4.12-1 

and Figure 4.12-1). Implementation of a Build Alternative would impact communities with 

environmental justice populations by requiring the acquisition of right-of-way and the 

displacement of residences. DRPT considers displacements to be adverse effects. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) has the 

potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects on potential environmental justice 

populations. All 19 residential relocations would occur in census tracts that have low-income 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-110 

populations, and 18 would occur in a census tract with low-income and minority populations. In the 

latter tract, in Spotsylvania County, the elementary school that students in the area are zoned for, Cedar 

Forest, is also a Title 1 school based on the high percentage of students that receive free and 

reduced-price lunches. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) 

does not have the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects on potential 

environmental justice populations. Of the 21 residential relocations, only five would occur in a 

census tract that has high low-income and minority populations. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), three of the four Build Alternatives that use the A-Line 

between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, and 6E) would have five 

residential relocations that occur in census tracts with high minority populations (Table 4.12-1). 

However, this is not disproportionate since seven potential residential relocations would also 

occur with these alternatives in census tracts with lower proportions of the population that are 

low-income or minority. The fourth Build Alternative that uses the A-Line (Build Alternative 6C) 

would have 112 relocations, 105 of which would be in census tracts with high minority or lowincome populations. DRPT has, therefore, determined that Build Alternative 6C has the potential 

for disproportionately high and adverse effects on potential environmental justice populations. 

The Build Alternative 6C relocations include a 100-unit apartment building. 

The potential impacts to environmental justice populations could be avoided and/or minimized 

by using a Build Alternative that does not have relocations occurring in a census tract with high 

percentages of low-income and minority populations. 

4.12.2.2 Noise and Vibration 

The Build Alternatives were also analyzed to determine any disproportionate and adverse noise 

and vibration effects to environmental justice populations. The potential noise receptors that were 

assessed for this analysis were residential receptors and other places for sleeping (Category 2) 

and were those receptors with moderate and severe impacts. A full discussion of noise impacts 

appears in Section 4.7, Noise and Vibration. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), there are no affected noise receptors. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), there are more than 700 noise receptors affected by the 

single Build Alternative 2A. Fifty-five (55) percent of these noise receptors occur in census tracts 

with a high proportion of minority and low-income populations in the communities of 

Springfield Forest, Lorton, Colchester, Marumsco Acres, Marumsco Woods, and Leeland. This 

Build Alternative would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on potential 

environmental justice populations in these communities. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), there are less than 100 noise receptors affected by Build 

Alternatives 3A and 3B; however, 88 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion 

of minority and low-income populations. These occur in the communities of Mayfield, Hazel Hill, 

Patriot Lane, Summit, and Claiborne Crossing. This would be a disproportionately high and 

adverse effect on potential environmental justice populations in these communities. There are 

almost 4,000 noise receptors affected by the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), 

primarily due to the addition of freight trains along the new bypass. Forty-five (45) percent of 

these noise receptors occur in census tracts with a high proportion of minority and low-income 

populations. The affected receptors occur throughout the entire bypass, not just clustered in one 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-111 

community. This alternative would not have a disproportionate effect on environmental justice 

populations. Mitigation for these effects could include noise barriers for affected receptors. 

Additional information regarding noise mitigation is provided in Section 4.7.1.5, Noise 

Mitigation Measures; however, detailed recommendations for noise mitigation will be developed 

during the final design process. 

Table 4.12-1: Residential Relocations by Environmental Justice Census Tracts 

Alternative Area Alternative 

City/County 

Prince William Count

y

Stafford County Spotsylvania Count

y

Hanover County Henrico County City of Richmond 

Total Tract 9001 Tract 105.04 Tract 202.05 Tract 3205 Tract 3204 Tract 2005.03 Tract 2009.06 Tract 402 Tract 706.02 Tract 710.02 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 2 – – – – – – – – – 2 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3C – 1 18 – – – – – – – 19 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5C – – – 16 5 – – – – – 21 

5C–Ashcake – – – 16 5 – – – – – 21 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – – – – – 3 4 0 4 1 12 

6B–A-Line – – – – – 3 4 0 4 1 12 

6B–S-Line – – – – – 3 4 0 0 0 7 

6C – – – – – 3 4 100* 4 1 112 

6D – – – – – 3 4 0 0 0 7 

6E – – – – – 3 4 0 4 1 12 

6F – – – – – 3 4 0 0 0 7 

6G – – – – – 3 4 0 0 0 7 

% Minorities in City/County 52 33 28 15 44 61 – 

% Minorities in Census Tract 42 9 36 7 17 20 25 50 84 83 – 

% Low-Income in City/County 6 5 8 5 11 26 – 

% Low-Income in Census Tract 5 10 9 2 10 10 6 46 14 21 – 

 Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. *This is an apartment building with 100 units. 

Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, have no residential relocations; therefore, they 

do not appear in this table. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-112 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-113 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-114 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-115 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-116 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 2A, 3A, 3B, 3C 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-117 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-118 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternative 3C 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-119 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-120 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternative 4A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-121 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 4A, 5A, 

5A–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-122 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 5A, 

5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-123 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 5A, 

5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake, 6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-124 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-125 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-126 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G 
 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-127

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), there are less than 100 noise receptors affected by the 

single Build Alternative 4A. Seventy-nine (79) percent of these occur in census tracts with a high 

proportion of minority and low-income populations in the communities of Claiborne, Woodford, 

Milford, Penola, and Doswell. This would be a disproportionately high and adverse effect on 

potential environmental justice populations in these communities. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), there are almost 160 noise receptors affected by Build 

Alternatives that pass through town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 

5D–Ashcake); however, 80 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion of 

minority and low-income populations. These occur in the communities of downtown Ashland, 

Gwathmey, and Elmont. There are more than 300 noise receptors affected by the Ashland Bypass 

(Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake). Forty-six (46) percent of these occur in census tracts 

with a high proportion of minority and low-income populations; therefore, the Ashland Bypass 

(Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would not have a disproportionately high and adverse 

impact on potential environmental justice populations. The Build Alternatives that pass through 

town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) would have a 

disproportionately high and adverse effect on potential environmental justice populations in 

these communities. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), noise receptors affected by the Build Alternatives range from 

approximately 310 to 440. The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and 

Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) affect approximately 400 noise receptors 

on the A-line; 30 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion of minority and 

low-income populations in the communities of Cedarhurst, Forest View, Belt Center, and 

Chimney Corner. Three of the four Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street 

Station and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, and 6F) affect approximately 440 noise 

receptors on the S-line; 54 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion of 

minority and low-income populations in the communities of Newtowne West, Chamberlayne, 

Gilpin, Davee Gardens, and Bellwood. The fourth Build Alternative that uses the S-Line (Build 

Alternative 6G) affects approximately 310 noise receptors. Thirty-five (35) percent of these occur 

in census tracts with a high proportion of minority and low-income populations, and they occur 

in the communities previously listed for both the A-Line and the S-Line. None of the Build 

Alternatives in Alternative Area 6 would have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on 

potential environmental justice populations in these communities. 

Additional information on the environmental justice analysis can be found in the Community 

Impact Assessment Technical Report (Appendix Q). 

4.13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ABOVEGROUND CULTURAL AND 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 306108) (Section 

106), and implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) require federal agencies to consider the 

effects of their actions on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment if the action would result in an adverse effect 

on any property listed in or eligible for the NRHP. Eligibility criteria for the NRHP are 

summarized in Section 3.13. The Section 106 process is summarized below: 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-128 

 Initiate Section 106 process–The responsible federal agency first determines whether it 

has an undertaking that is a type of activity that could affect historic properties. Historic 

properties are properties that are included in the NRHP or that meet the criteria for the 

NRHP. If so, it must identify the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO) to consult with during the process. It should 

also plan to involve the public, and identify other potential consulting parties. If it 

determines that it has no undertaking, or that its undertaking is a type of activity that has 

no potential to affect historic properties, the agency has no further Section 106 obligations. 

 Identify historic properties–If the agency's undertaking could affect historic properties, 

the agency determines the scope of appropriate identification efforts and then proceeds 

to identify historic properties in the area of potential effects. The agency reviews 

background information, consults with the SHPO/THPO and others, seeks information 

from knowledgeable parties, and conducts additional studies as necessary. Districts, sites, 

buildings, structures, and objects listed in the NRHP are considered; unlisted properties 

are evaluated against the National Park Service's published criteria, in consultation with 

the SHPO/THPO and any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that may attach 

religious or cultural importance to them. 

If questions arise about the eligibility of a given property, the agency may seek a formal 

determination of eligibility from the National Park Service. Section 106 review gives equal 

consideration to properties that have already been included in the NRHP as well as those 

that have not been so included, but that meet NRHP criteria. 

If the agency finds that no historic properties are present or affected, it provides 

documentation to the SHPO/THPO and, barring any objection, proceeds with its 

undertaking. 

If the agency finds that historic properties are present, it proceeds to assess possible 

adverse effects. 

 Assess adverse effects–The agency, in consultation with the SHPO/THPO, makes an 

assessment of adverse effects on the identified historic properties based on criteria found 

in ACHP's regulations. 

If they agree that there will be no adverse effect, the agency proceeds with the undertaking 

and any agreed-upon conditions. 

If they find that there is an adverse effect, or if the parties cannot agree and ACHP 

determines that there is an adverse effect, the agency begins consultation to seek ways to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. 

 Resolve adverse effects–The agency consults to resolve adverse effects with the 

SHPO/THPO and others, who may include Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian 

organizations, local governments, permit or license applicants, and members of the 

public. ACHP may participate in consultation when there are substantial impacts to 

important historic properties, when a case presents important questions of policy or 

interpretation, when there is a potential for procedural problems, or when there are issues 

of concern to Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 

Consultation usually results in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which outlines 

agreed-upon measures that the agency will take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the 
 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-129

adverse effects. In some cases, the consulting parties may agree that no such measures are 

possible, but that the adverse effects must be accepted in the public interest. 

 Implementation–If an MOA is executed, the agency proceeds with its undertaking under 

the terms of the MOA. 

 Failure to resolve adverse effects–If consultation proves unproductive, the agency or the 

SHPO/THPO, or ACHP itself, may terminate consultation. If a SHPO terminates 

consultation, the agency and ACHP may conclude an MOA without SHPO involvement. 

However, if a THPO terminates consultation and the undertaking is on or affecting 

historic properties on tribal lands, ACHP must provide its comments. The agency must 

submit appropriate documentation to ACHP and request ACHP's written comments. The 

agency head must take into account ACHP's written comments in deciding how to 

proceed. 

 Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations–The regulations also place major 

emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, in 

keeping with the 1992 amendments to NHPA. Consultation with an Indian tribe must 

respect tribal sovereignty and the government-to-government relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. Even if an Indian tribe has not been certified by 

NPS to have a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer who can act for the SHPO on its lands, 

it must be consulted about undertakings on or affecting its lands on the same basis and in 

addition to the SHPO. 

 Public Involvement–Public involvement is a key ingredient in successful Section 106 

consultation, and the views of the public should be solicited and considered throughout 

the process. 

FRA and DRPT initiated the Section 106 process and invited consulting parties, such as the 

National Park Service (NPS), local historical societies, and property owners, to participate in the 

Fall of 2014. Table 5.7-1 in Chapter 5 lists the consulting parties for this Project, as well as those who 

were invited to be a consulting party but did not respond. 

DRPT defined an Area of Potential Effect after the Section 106 process was initiated. The Virginia 

Department of Historic Resources (DHR), the SHPO for the Commonwealth of Virginia, 

concurred on the Area of Potential Effect in early 2015. DRPT evaluated the resources in the APE 

and identified 158 historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE): 9 archaeological 

sites, 135 above ground resources, 3 resources with an above ground and below ground 

component, and 11 battlefields. See the Cultural Resources Reports (Appendix R) for technical 

reports and mapping related to cultural resource studies and historic properties. DHR has 

reviewed and commented on these technical reports. After DHR review, FRA and DRPT 

distributes them to the consulting parties for review and comment. Section 5.7 provides a 

summary of the Section 106 coordination completed for this Project. 

FRA has completed a preliminary evaluation of potential effect of the Project on archaeological 

and historic architectural resources in accordance with Section 106. According to the criteria for 

Effect and Adverse Effect developed by ACHP (36 CFR Section 800.5), potential effect is 

determined based on the following: 

 No Effect–There would be no effect, neither adverse nor beneficial, on historic properties. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-130 

 No Adverse Effect–There would be an effect, but the effect would not compromise those 

characteristics that qualify the property for listing on the NRHP. Archaeological sites may 

be “adversely affected” when they are threatened with unavoidable physical destruction 

or damage. 

 Adverse Effect–There would be an effect that would compromise the physical and/or 

historic integrity of the resource.

4.13.1 Archaeological Resources 

As described in Section 3.13, archaeological studies have been completed along all Project 

alternatives with the exception of the Fredericksburg and Ashland bypasses and on roadway 

modification areas. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), a phased approach for archaeological 

studies such as this are allowed where alternatives under consideration consist of corridors or 

large land areas. DHR has agreed with this approach for this Project. Additional Phase I survey 

will be completed through these unsurveyed areas once a Preferred Alternative is selected. Any 

ensuing Phase II archaeological evaluation testing will be included as a stipulation in the PA that 

will be completed as part of the environmental process. 

Two (2) NRHP and 10 NRHP-eligible archaeological sites are located in the APE, including 9 

archaeological sites and 3 resources that have both an archaeological and an architectural 

component. One of these sites—Ferry Farm/George Washington’s Boyhood Home 

(44ST0084/089-0016)—is a National Historic Landmark (NHL). FRA’s preliminary 

determinations of effect for archaeological resources in Virginia are listed in Tables 4.13-1 and 

4.13-2. Coordination of these determinations is ongoing with DHR and consulting parties. The 

resources are listed in the order they appear in the study area from north to south. Only the 

sites with a preliminary determination of an adverse effect on the resource are described below. 

Site 44SP0187 comprises a set of cut stone piers that are now located under the waters of the 

Rappahannock River. They may be associated with earlier railroad structures or nearby mills that 

are no longer extant. It is eligible under Criteria A and D for its association with the development 

of Fredericksburg and its information potential. Construction of a new bridge across the 

Rappahannock River to accommodate a third track for Build Alternative 3B would impact the 

subsurface archaeological deposits in this area, thus diminishing the data potential of this site. 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 3B would have an adverse effect to this 

historic property. 

Sites 44HE1098, 44HE1097, and 44HE1095 are all archaeological sites located in downtown 

Richmond. They are potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and D for their association 

with the development of Richmond and their data potential. They were recorded based on the 

appearance of warehouses and other urban buildings on historic maps in this area. Today, these 

sites are paved parking lots. Often, parking lot developers truncate once-extant buildings and 

leave foundations and other deposits in place, sealing them with asphalt. As such, the potential 

for notable archaeological deposits within these recorded sites is high. Current plans for Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G include the installation of new piers to support expanded 

tracks near Main Street Station. The installation of the piers would result in subsurface 

disturbances within these three recorded archaeological sites. As such, FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G would have an adverse effect 

on these three archaeological sites. 
 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-131

Table 4.13-1: Summary of Preliminary Effect Determinations on Archaeological Sites 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Potential Effect (Number of Resources 

Adverse No Adverse No Effect 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A 0 0 0 

1B 0 0 0 

1C 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 0 0 0 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A 0 0 3 

3B 1 1 1 

3C* 0 1 0 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A 0 0 0 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 0 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 0 0 0 

5B 0 0 0 

5B–Ashcake 0 0 0 

5C* 0 0 0 

5C–Ashcake 0 0 0 

5D–Ashcake 0 0 0 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A 0 5 4 

6B–A-Line 0 5 4 

6B–S-Line 3 4 2 

6C 0 5 4 

6D 3 4 2 

6E 0 7 2 

6F 3 4 2 

6G 3 4 2 

* Partial Data; Only Phase IA reconnaissance studies were completed on the bypass options. As such, this count only includes previously recorded 

resources. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-132 

Table 4.13-2: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Archaeological Sites 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

5D–Ashcake 

6A 

089-0016/ 44ST0084 

Ferry Farm – – – – No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – 

44SP0187 Stone Piers; Bridge or 

Building 

– – – – No 

Effect 

Adverse – – – – – – – – – – 

44SP0468-extension 

Earthwork/ Jackson's Earthwork 

– – – – No 

Effect 

No Effect – – – – – – – – – – 

44CF0680 Fort Darling/ Battlefield, 

Earthworks, Fort 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No 

Advers

44HE1098 Main Street Station 

Parking Lot/Railroad 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No 

Advers

44HE1097 Railroad, Warehouse – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No 

Advers

44HE1092 Warehouse – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No Effe44HE1094 Warehouse – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No Effe44HE1095 Storage Facility – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No 

Advers

127-6245/ 44CF0724 

Williams Bridge Company, Emergency Fleet Corporation Factory, 700 East 4th Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No Effe

020-0063 Falling Creek Ironworks 

Archaeological Site 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No Effe

020-0022/ 44CF0680 

Centralia Earthworks – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No 

Advers
 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-133

4.13.2 Historical Resources 

One-hundred thirty-eight (138) eligible or listed buildings, districts, structures, and objects are 

located within the APE of the DC2RVA Project⎯135 above ground resources and 3 that have an 

above ground and below ground component. They range from single-family rural dwellings to 

significant historic districts along the rail corridor. One above ground property is an NHL—Main 

Street Station in Richmond (127-0172). FRA’s preliminary determinations of effect for historic 

resources in the Project APE are listed in Tables 4.13-3 and 4.13-4. Coordination of these 

determinations is ongoing with DHR and relevant consulting parties. The resources are listed in 

the order they appear in the study area from north to south. Only the buildings, districts, 

structures, and objects with a preliminary determination of an adverse effect on the resource are 

described below; these historic properties are also shown on Figure 4.13-1. 

Table 4.13-3: Summary of Preliminary Effect Determinations on Buildings, Districts, 

Structures, and Objects 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Potential Effect (Number of Resources) 

Adverse No Adverse No Effect 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A 1 2 0 

1B 1 2 0 

1C 1 2 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 1 10 4 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A 1 0 15 

3B 4 11 1 

3C* 1 5 0 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A 3 12 4 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 0 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 0 3 16 

5B 7 10 2 

5B–Ashcake 7 10 2 

5C* 1 4 2 

5C–Ashcake* 1 4 2 

5D–Ashcake 7 10 2 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A 8 50 11 

6B–A-Line 16 42 11 

6B–S-Line 13 45 11 

6C 16 42 11 

6D 7 52 10 

6E 7 60 2 

6F 7 52 10 

6G 10 57 2 

*Partial Data; Only Phase IA reconnaissance studies were completed on the bypass options. As such, this count only includes previously recorded 

resources. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-134 

Figure 4.13-1: Historic Properties with Potential Adverse Effects 
 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-135

Figure 4.13-1: Historic Properties with Potential Adverse Effects 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-136 

Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

029-0218 Mount Vernon Memorial Highway 

(8.5-mile section of the George Washington Memorial Parkway from Fairfax County to the southern boundary of Alexandria) 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – – 

000-0045 Washington National Airport 

(Reagan National Airport) (1 Aviation Circle, Arlington) 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – – 

100-0160 George Washington Junior High 

School, (1005 Mt. Vernon Avenue) 

– – –

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0133 Parker-Gray Historic 

District/Uptown (northwestern quadrant of Old Town Alexandria) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0137 Rosemont Historic District 

(northwest of Old Town Alexandria) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0124 Alexandria Depot (110 Callahan 

Drive, Alexandria) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0128 George Washington National 

Masonic Memorial (101 Callahan Drive, Alexandria) 

– – –

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0277 Phoenix Mill (3642 Wheeler 

Avenue, Alexandria) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Holmes Run 

(Cameron Run Park, Alexandria) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

029-0953 Old Colchester Road, Potomac 

Path, King's Highway (Occoquan River to Route 1, Fairfax County) 

– – –

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – – – – – 

029-5741 Hannah P. Clark House/Enyedi 

House (10605 Furnace Road, Fairfax County) 

– – –

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – – – – – 

029-0043 Colchester Arms, Fairfax Arms 

(10712 Old Colchester Road, Fairfax County) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Occoquan River 

(Occoquan River at Town of Occoquan, Prince William County) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued
Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

287-0010 Marine Corps Base Quantico, 

Quantico Marine Corps Base Historic District (East of town of Quantico, Prince William and Stafford counties) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

287-5147 Town of Quantico, Town of 

Quantico Historic District (Southern Prince William County, east of Route 1) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

089-0019 Richland/Richlands (945 

Widewater Road, Stafford County) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

089-0045 RF&P Bridge over Potomac Creek 

at Leland Road (Leland Road east of Route 1, Stafford County) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – 

089-0080 RF&P Bridge over Naomi Road 

(Naomi Road north of Rappahannock, Stafford County) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

Adverse 

— – – – – – – – 

111-0147 Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania Co. 

Battlefields National Military Park & Cemetery (Lee Drive, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – 

089-0016/ 44ST0084 

Ferry Farm (268 Kings Highway, Stafford County) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – 

089-0014 Sherwood Forest (Sherwood 

Forest Farm Road, Stafford County) 

– – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – 

111-0132-0025 

Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge (Railroad at Rappahannock River north of Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0132-0704 

Fredericksburg Train Station (200 Lafayette Boulevard, Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0132 Fredericksburg Historic District 

(downtown Fredericksburg, east of Route 1) 

– – – –

Adverse Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0132-0020 

Purina Tower (401 Charles Street, Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-138 

Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

111-0132-0522 

House, 314–316 Frederick Street (314–316 Frederick Street, Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0009-0795 

Pulliam's Service Station (411 Lafayette Boulevard, Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0009 Fredericksburg Historic District 

Extension (west of historic district, Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

088-5364 Fredericksburg & Gordonsville 

Railroad Bed District (Virginia Central Railroad) (38 miles long; Fredericksburg to Orange) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0145 Fredericksburg Gun Manufactory 

(210 Ferdinand Street, Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

088-0254 Slaughter Pen Farm (11232 

Tidewater Trail, Spotsylvania County) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – – – 

088-0039 LaVue (3232 LaVue Lane, 

Spotsylvania County) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – 

016-0092 Fairfield Plantation Office, Jackson 

Shrine (12019 Stonewall Jackson Road, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – 

016-0208 House (12096 Guinea Drive, 

Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – 

016-5165 Excelsior Industry of Caroline 

County MPD (numerous properties throughout Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – 

016-5129 Woodford Historic District 

(central Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – 

016-0223 Woodford Excelsior Company 

Office (Lake Farm Road, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – 

016-0222 Woodford Freight & Passenger 

Depot (Woodford Road, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – 

016-0224 Glenwood House (11102 

Woodford Road, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – 

 Continued
Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

016-0220 Carolina Mansion (11146 

Woodford Road, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

016-0270 Milford State Bank (15461 Antioch 

Road, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

016-5136 Milford Historic District (eastcentral Caroline County) – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 016-0286 Coleman's Store (22275 Penola 

Road/16095 Polecat Lane, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-5448 Doswell Historic District 

(northern Hanover County, east of Route 1) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-0470 House/Squashapenny Store (10570 

Doswell Road, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-0469 Tri-County Bank, Doswell Branch 

(part of Squashapenny Antiques) (10561 Doswell Road, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-0093 Doswell Depot and Tower (10577 

Doswell Road, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-5307 Taylorsville Road Historic District 

(southern Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Little River 

(Little River at RF&P, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-0836 Earthworks, Little River (south 

side of Little River, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-0557 Dry Bridge (10411 Old Bridge 

Road, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– –

042-0392 Montevideo (Hanover County 

west of Route 1, north of Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

166-5073 Berkleytown Historic District 

(north of Ashland, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

Adverse Adverse 

– –

166-5073-0010 

House, Dabney Funeral Home (600 B Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– –

166-0001 Ashland Historic District 

(downtown Ashland west of I-95) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

Adverse Adverse 

– –

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-140 

Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

166-0001-0015 

Business Office, Randolph-Macon (310 N. Center Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – 

166-5072 Randolph-Macon College Historic 

District Expansion (east of original district, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

Adverse Adverse – – 

166-0002 Randolph-Macon College Historic 

District (east of RF&P, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

Adverse Adverse – – 

166-0001-0008 

Ashland Station Depot (112 N. Railroad Avenue, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

Adverse Adverse – – 

166-5041 Priddy House (107 Stebbins 

Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

– – 

166-0001-0055 

House (704 S. Center Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – 

166-0001-0060 

House (708 S. Center Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – 

166-0036 MacMurdo House (713 S. Center 

Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

Adverse Adverse – – 

166-0037 Hugo House (11208 Gwathmey 

Church Road, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – 

166-0001-0077 

House (1005 S. Center Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – 

042-5048 Elmont Historic District (southern 

Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adve

043-0693 Mill Road Historic District 

(northern Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adve

043-0694 Hunton Treasures (11701 

Greenwood Road, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effec

043-5646 House (11501 Old Washington 

Highway, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adve

043-5657 Darling Smokestack (Old 

Washington Highway, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0690 Lewis-McLeod House (2945 

Mountain Road, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0292 Laurel Industrial School Historic 

District (Hungary Road, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued
Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

043-0292-0001 

Main Building/Robert Stiles Building/Bluford Office Building (2900 Hungary Road, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-5636 Integrated Power Sources of 

Virginia (2260 Dabney Road, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6136 Scott's Addition Historic District 

(northwest Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6569 Central National Bank (3501 W. 

Broad Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6514 Kent Road Village (905 Kent Road, 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0742 West of Boulevard Historic 

District (west Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6756 Carillon Neighborhood Historic 

District (northwest Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0171 James River and Kanawha Canal 

Historic District (north of James River, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6792 Southern Railway (north of James 

River, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6629 Cedarhurst Neighborhood 

Historic District (northwest Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Temp 402 House (351 W. 49th Street, 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6757 Woodstock Historic District 

(west Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Temp R Rolando Historic District 

(southwest Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Temp 268 Broad Run House (2011 S. Kinsley 

Avenue, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5351 Richmond & Petersburg Electric 

Railway (along Route 1 between Richmond and Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-142 

Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

020-5336 The Bellwood-Richmond 

Quartermaster Depot Historic District, United States Department of Defense Supply Center Historic District (north central Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6188 Movieland Bowtie Cinema 

(1331 North Boulevard, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6840 Warehouse (2728 Hermitage 

Road, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6730 Hermitage Road Warehouse 

Historic District (north central Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6165 Cookie Factory Lofts (900 

Terminal Place, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0226 Science Museum of Virginia 

(2500 Broad Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-5978 Todd Lofts (1128 Hermitage Road, 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6145 Southern Stove Works (1215 

Hermitage Road, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6570 West Broad Street Industrial and 

Commercial Historic District (north of Broad Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0414 Governor's School (1000 North 

Lombardy Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0354 Virginia Union University Historic 

District (1500 North Lombardy Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0428 George W. Carver Elementary 

School (1110 West Leigh Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0822 Carver Residential Historic 

District (northeast Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6171 Richmond and Chesapeake Bay 

Railway Barn), Richmond-Ashland Railway Company Car Barn (northeast Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued
Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

127-5679 Barton Heights Cemetery 

(1600 Lamb Avenue, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0353 Richmond Nursing Home (210 

Hospital Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6166 Hebrew Cemetery (320 Hospital 

Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0343 Chestnut Hill/ Plateau Historic 

District (northwest Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0344 Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row 

Historic District (north of James River, downtown Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6129 Winfree Cottage (East Main 

Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0172 Main Street Station and Trainshed, 

New Union Station, Seaboard Airline & Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Depot (Main Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0344-0123 

Railroad Y.M.C.A. (1552 East Main Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0219 Shockoe Slip Historic District and 

Expansions (north of James River, downtown Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6793 C&O Railroad (downtown 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-5809 Bridge #1857, North 14th Street; 

Mayo Bridge North (14th Street, 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-5808 Bridge #1857, South 14th Street; 

Mayo Bridge South (14th Street, 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0197 Philip Morris Leaf Storage 

Warehouse (1717–1721 East Cary Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0282 Henrico County Courthouse 

(2127 Main Street East, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0192 St. John's Church Historic District 

(downtown Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-144 

Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

127-0192-0322 

Libby Hill Park and Park House (2801 East Franklin Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0854 Bridge #1850 (E. Main Street, 

spanning Southern Railway, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0119 John Woodward House (3017 

Williamsburg Avenue, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6693 Armitage Manufacturing Company 

(3200 Williamsburg Avenue, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6255 Fulton Gas Works (Williamsburg 

Avenue, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0257 Bridge #8067 (east of downtown 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-5313 James River Steam Brewery 

Cellars (4920 Old Main Street, Henrico County)) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0439 Aviation General Supply Depot 

(508 Bickerstaff Road, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0457 Manchester Warehouse Historic 

District (south of James River, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6193 J.P. Taylor Leaf Tobacco, Southern 

Stove Works (516 Dinwiddie Avenue, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6245/ 44CF0724 

Williams Bridge Company, Emergency Fleet Corporation Factory (700 East 4th Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6248 Pure Oil Company, 

Transmontaigne(1314 Commerce Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6213 Davee Gardens Historic District 

(east of Route 1, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5474 DuPont Spruance (north 

Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued
Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

020-0007 Bellwood, Sheffields, Auburn 

Chase, Building 42, Defense Supply Center Richmond (8000 Jefferson Davis Highway, Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0013 House (3619 Thurston Road, 

Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5378 VEPCo Power Transmission Line 

(west of Route 1, Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0140 Circle Oaks (4510 Centralia Road, 

Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0552 Centralia Post Office (Centralia 

Road, Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

076-0301 Richmond, Fredericksburg, and 

Potomac Railroad (rail corridor between Washington, D.C. and Main Street Station in Richmond) 

Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse No 

Effect 

Adverse Adverse Adverse 

–

No 

Adverse 

Adverse Adverse Adverse Adve

127-6251 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad 

Corridor, Richmond, and Petersburg Railroad (A-Line rail corridor between Main Street Station and Centralia) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6271 Seaboard Air Line Railroad 

Corridor (S-Line rail corridor between Main Street Station and Centralia) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-146 

The RF&P Bridge over Naomi Road (089-0080) is a double-vault arched structure rumored to be 

the oldest documented and identified reinforced concrete bridge in the Commonwealth. It is 

potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for its architectural merit. It is also a 

contributing element to the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac (RF&P) Railroad (076-0301). 

Construction of Build Alternative 3B would result in removal of the existing bridge and 

construction of a new structure. Demolition would remove all character-defining features of this 

resource. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 3B would have an adverse 

effect on this structure. 

The Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge (111-0132-0025) is a multiple-span, open-spandrel, 

concrete-arch bridge and is an excellent and rare surviving example of a reinforced-concrete arch 

railroad bridge within this region of Virginia. It was erected when the station and tracks were 

elevated for automobile traffic pass through on surface streets in downtown Fredericksburg. The 

bridge is both individually eligible (Criterion C for its architectural merit) and eligible as a 

contributing element to the Fredericksburg Historic District (111-0132) and the RF&P Railroad 

(076-0301). Addition of a third track to the east of the existing alignment as part of Build 

Alternative 3B would require construction of a new bridge adjacent to the old structure, thus 

diminishing its integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association and affecting its architectural 

character. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 3B would have an adverse 

effect on this resource. 

The 200-acre Fredericksburg Historic District (111-0132) comprises the city’s downtown 

commercial area, adjacent industrial area, and some of the surrounding residential blocks. This 

part of Fredericksburg boasts a wide variety of infrastructure that ranges in date from the early 

eighteenth century throughout the late twentieth century. It is listed in the NRHP under Criterion 

C for its architectural merit. Although Build Alternative 3A does not require installation of new 

tracks, plans call for construction of a multi-story parking deck to the east (south) of the tracks in 

an existing parking lot. Installation of the third track associated with Build Alternative 3B also 

entails building the multi-story parking deck. This new structure would impact the viewshed of 

the district and its integrity of setting, feeling, and association by adding a large, non-conforming, 

visual element to the distinct area skyline. The new parking structure would also add a new 

physical element within the district boundaries. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 3A and 3B would have an adverse effect on this historic property. 

The Doswell Historic District (042-5448) encompasses a rural community that was once a center of 

major activity along road and rail networks. Nearly a dozen historic properties are located within 

the district’s boundaries. It is potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A for its association 

with railroad history and C for its architectural integrity. Although the community was founded 

along the rail lines, Build Alternative 4A would adversely affect one contributing element to the 

district, the Squashapenny Junction Store (042-0470), as listed below. This includes potentially 

removing the main building and associated outbuildings and taking land from the parcel, thus 

diminishing the characteristics that render it eligible for the NRHP. FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that because of the potential physical adverse effects to a contributing element, 

Build Alternative 4A would likely have an adverse effect on the district. 

Located at 10570 Doswell Road, the Squashapenny Junction Store (042-0470) is a two-and-a-halfstory, three-bay, vernacular commercial building. Located adjacent to the tracks, the store was a 

commercial hub for the Doswell community. It is potentially eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion C for its architectural style. The building is also a contributing element to the Doswell 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-147 

Historic District (042-5448). The building is located immediately east of the rail tracks. Build 

Alternative 4A requires acquisition of land from the parcel and would bring the tracks even closer 

to the dwelling, potentially requiring removal of the main building or one or more contributing 

outbuildings on the property, thus compromising its integrity of design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, and association. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 

4A would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

The Berkleytown Historic District (166-5073) is typical of many small-town, twentieth-century, 

African American neighborhoods in that it was relatively isolated from the formal downtown 

core and is dotted by small vernacular dwellings. It is potentially eligible under Criteria A for its 

association with African-American history in this area and C for its architectural merit. Construction 

of an overpass carrying Vaughan Road over the rail tracks associated with Build Alternatives 5B, 

5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would require alterations to the historic road pattern within the 

district and require a new bridge structure within the viewshed of the district and several 

contributing elements. Due to these disturbances to the setting, feeling, and design of the district, 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

would have an adverse effect. 

The Ashland Historic District (166-0001), with its large collection of late-Victorian and Edwardian 

frame dwellings and its brick commercial core, all set among hundreds of trees, survives as a fine 

example of a railroad and streetcar suburb preserving much of its turn-of-the-century character. It 

is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with railroad history and C for its 

architectural character. Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, expanding the 

existing rail corridor through town, would result in modified roadways, sidewalks, and viewsheds 

in the district, thus impacting character-defining features. Moreover, FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that these alternatives would have an adverse effect to several contributing 

resources to the district (as described below), including the Ashland Station Depot (166-0001-0008) 

and the MacMurdo House (166-0036). As such, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have an adverse effect on the Ashland 

Historic District. 

The Randolph-Macon College Historic District Expansion (166-5072) highlights a significant 

part of campus that developed between the early-twentieth century and the mid-1960s when a 

substantial building boom occurred. The expansion was determined to be eligible for the NRHP 

as part of the current survey. Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, expanding 

the existing rail corridor through town, would result in modified roadways, sidewalks, and 

viewsheds in the district, thus impacting character-defining features. Thus, FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have an 

adverse effect on the district. 

The 85-acre Randolph-Macon College Historic District (166-0002) includes the college campus 

and all associated buildings, structures and landscape features. This is the oldest Methodistrelated college in the United States still in operation. The original district was listed in the NRHP 

under Criteria A as one of the oldest Methodist colleges in the United States and C for its 

architectural merit. As with the Randolph-Macon Historic District Expansion listed above, Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would result in modifications that would 

diminish character-defining features of the district through roadway realignments, sidewalk 

modifications, and viewshed changes. Some contributing elements may also be required to be 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-148 

relocated. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–

Ashcake would have an adverse effect on this historic property. 

The one-story, five-bay, brick Ashland Station Depot (166-0001-0008) is said to have been 

designed by W. P. Lee to replace a previous circa-1890 station that burned down. Although the 

building is no longer used as a station (with its interior turned over for other purposes), the 

building appears little altered and is a good example of a Colonial Revival-styled depot 

potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with area development and 

C for its architectural character. The building is also a contributing element to the Ashland 

Historic District (166-0001) and the RF&P Railroad (076-0301). Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

and 5D–Ashcake require track changes and alterations to the station. Build Alternative 5D–

Ashcake includes demolition of the historic station and construction of a new station. These 

modifications, and the potential demolition, would diminish the characteristics that render this 

resource eligible for the NRHP. Removal of the historic, and continued, use of these contributing 

elements would remove character-defining attributes of the property—namely its use as a rail 

stop. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–

Ashcake would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

The MacMurdo House (166-0036) is a two-story, three-bay, Greek Revival, single-family 

dwelling. It is one of the few buildings of its style in Ashland, and it has excellent historic 

integrity. As such, it is potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for its architectural 

merit. The building is also a contributing element to the Ashland Historic District (166-0001) as it 

dates to the period of significance and reflects the developmental history of the district. Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, expanding the existing rail corridor through 

town, would result in moving the existing sidewalks and roadways closer to the historic dwelling 

and onto the parcel boundaries, thus impacting the resource’s integrity of design, setting, feeling, 

and association and modifying key visual elements of the building. FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have an 

adverse effect on this property. 

The Laurel Industrial School Historic District (043-0292) consists of a complex of buildings that 

was part of a school founded under the patronage of the Prison Association of Virginia, a group 

of private citizens who sought to reform the state’s penal system by establishing a self-supporting 

model industrial reformatory for boys. It is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association 

with prison reform and C for its architectural character. All Build Alternatives in Area 6 (6A 

through 6G) would require construction of a bridge to carry traffic on Hungary Road over the 

rail tracks, as well as notable associated secondary road changes. These modifications would 

impact the district through the introduction of a large visual element (the new overpass) and 

modified roadway plans. Some contributing elements may also be required to be relocated. As 

such, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A through 6G would have an 

adverse effect on this historic district. 

The Scott's Addition Historic District (127-6136) is a 152-acre industrial and commercial district in 

Richmond featuring 287 contributing resources built primarily between 1900 and 1956 in the 

Colonial Revival, Classical Revival, Mission, Moderne, International, and Art Deco styles. The 

district is located immediately southeast of the intersection of the A-line and the S-line in Richmond. 

It is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with Richmond development and C 

for its architectural fabric. Construction of Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6E, 

and 6G would require notable changes to this area, including new tracks outside of the existing 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-149 

right-of-way, erecting superstructures to support rail facilities, and construction of multi-story 

parking facilities. These changes would diminish character-defining features of the district. FRA’s 

preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G 

would have an adverse effect on the historic district. 

Containing approximately 142 parcels, the Rolando Historic District (Temp R) is a post-World 

War II-era, suburban neighborhood. The dwellings were constructed in the Minimal Traditional 

style. The neighborhood and contributing dwellings have been generally unchanged since its 

subdivision in 1946. It is potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for its styling as a 

post-war neighborhood. Plans associated with Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G 

include construction of a new overpass carrying Broad Rock Boulevard over the tracks and 

associated roadway modifications. Some of the impacted roadways are located within the 

footprint of the district, and the new overpass would be a notable new visual element to the 

viewshed of the neighborhood. These changes would diminish the district’s integrity of design, 

setting, feeling, and association. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G would have an adverse effect on this district. 

The two-story, Federal-style, frame Broad Run House (Temp 268) was constructed with a centralpassage plan. It is a rare and exceptional, surviving example of a late-eighteenth century dwelling 

in this area of Richmond. Although it is located within the Rolando Historic District, the resource 

is a noncontributing element to the district as it dates outside of its period of significance. The 

house is located within the northeastern section of the Rolando Historic District listed above. It is 

potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for its architectural style and as a unique 

example of extant eighteenth-century architecture in this part of Richmond. The new overpass 

and roadway changes along Broad Rock Boulevard would have the same impacts on this 

individual resource. Given this, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G would have an adverse effect on this historic property. 

The Movieland Bowtie Cinema (127-6188), previously known as the Richmond Locomotive & 

Machine Works, the American Locomotive Company, and Richmond Works, is an industrial 

complex with two buildings⎯the brass foundry and the iron foundry⎯that are both steel-framed 

resources with masonry walls. It is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with 

Richmond industrial history and C for its architectural merit. Construction of Build Alternatives 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C require development of new rail corridors and large-scale 

structures to accommodate the train movement in this part of Richmond, as well as associated 

road modifications and new parking structures. Some of these changes border, or are actually 

located on, the Movieland Bowtie Cinema parcel. Modifications would diminish the 

characteristics that render this resource eligible for the NRHP. As such, FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have an adverse 

effect on this resource. 

Access to the Warehouse at 2728 Hermitage Road (127-6840) was not granted during the Phase 

I-level survey. As such, little is known about the structure; however, the changes noted above 

associated with the Movieland Bowtie Cinema would also result in notable changes to the 

viewshed and nearby roadways related to this warehouse. FRA’s preliminary determination is 

that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have an adverse effect on this 

resource. 

The industrial Hermitage Road Warehouse Historic District (127-6730) is characterized by 

roughly a dozen medium- to large-scale one-story warehouse buildings set on a gridded block 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-150 

pattern. Most of the buildings have large footprints that occupy most of the block on which they 

sit. The buildings are typically one-story, clad in brick, and covered with flat roofs. It is listed in 

the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with twentieth-century Richmond development 

and Criterion C for its architectural styling. Located north of the tracks, Build Alternatives 6B–ALine, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would require road work along Hermitage Road, which forms the 

western boundary of the district, and also include construction of a rail superstructure to aid in 

train movement. This new superstructure would be visible from the district. Because of these 

modifications, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 

and 6C would have an adverse effect on this district. 

The Cookie Factory Lofts (127-6165), previously known as Southern Biscuit Company, Interbake 

Foods, and Famous Foods of Virginia, is a six-story, multi-bay, industrial building with a water 

tower on the roof that was constructed with Colonial Revival attributes. It is listed in the NRHP 

under Criterion A for its association with the development of this section of Richmond and 

Criterion C for its architectural merit. The resource is also a contributing element to the West 

Broad Street Industrial and Commercial Historic District (127-6570) listed below. The same 

aforementioned changes associated with Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would 

affect the setting, feeling, and association of the Cookie Factory Lofts due to construction of new 

rail lines and road changes in the area. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have an adverse effect on this historic property. 

The Science Museum of Virginia (127-0226) is a 3-story, 11-bay, monumental Neoclassical style 

train station that now houses the Science Museum of Virginia. This resource was designed by 

architect John Russell Pope and is constructed of dressed ashlar with a large, central, copper 

dome. It is listed on the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with transportation history and C 

for its architectural characteristics. The resource is also a contributing element to the West Broad 

Street Industrial and Commercial Historic District (127-6570) listed below. While construction of 

Build Alternative 6C would restore the historic usage of this property, many of the rail-related 

features originally part of this property were removed when the structure was converted into a 

museum. Work associated with Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would result in 

new construction to the north and east of the historic building, such as raised tracks and 

installation of new structures, as well as roadway modifications. This work would diminish the 

integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association of this historic 

property. As such, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–SLine, and 6C would have an adverse effect on the Science Museum of Virginia. 

The five-story, multi-bay Todd Lofts (127-5978) building was originally built as the Richmond 

Brewery. The E.M. Todd Company bought the building in 1919 and expanded it into a meat 

production facility. Until 1998, this resource housed the county’s oldest meat processor in 

continuous business. This property is located along Hermitage Road. It is listed on the NRHP 

under Criterion A for its association with industrial development in this part of Richmond. Build 

Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would require road work along Hermitage Road, and 

Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line include construction of a rail superstructure to aid 

in train movement. This new superstructure would be visible from the property. Because of these 

modifications, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 

and 6C would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

The Southern Stove Works (127-6145) is an industrial complex of four brick buildings and a 

water tower built during the time of rapid industrialization in Richmond. Southern Stove Works 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-151 

was one of the two largest and most important stove making plants in Richmond and the South. 

It is listed on the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with Richmond industrialization and 

C for its architectural merit. This resource is located just east across Hermitage Road from Todd 

Lofts, listed above. The same modifications stated above are applicable to this resource, including 

roadway changes and construction of new rail structures. FRA’s preliminary determination is 

that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have an adverse effect on this 

historic property. 

The 40-acre West Broad Street Industrial and Commercial Historic District (127-6570) reflects 

development of the industrial capabilities of Richmond, and the allied development of 

commercial resources, culminating in the embrace of large-scale consumer economy by the 

middle of the twentieth century. It is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with 

industrial history in this area and C for its architectural characteristics. The district is located on 

both sides of Broad Street and extends northeast past Marshall Street. Changes associated with 

the new rail system and associated roads related to Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 

6C would diminish character-defining features of this district, as well as at least two contributing 

resources⎯the Cookie Factory Lofts (127-6165) and the Science Museum of Virginia (127-0226). 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would 

have an adverse effect on this historic district. 

The Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row Historic District (127-0344) encompasses the area of 

Richmond's earliest residential, commercial, and manufacturing activity. It is listed in the NRHP 

under Criteria A for its association with early Richmond developmental history and C for its 

architectural merit. The district is located east of the S-line corridor and north of the James River 

in downtown Richmond. Construction associated with Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G would 

include one to two multistory parking garages and the addition of long, linear platforms within 

the district boundaries, thus resulting in a modified building stock and the addition of large visual 

elements to the district. These elements have the potential to diminish the characteristics that 

render this resource eligible for the NRHP. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

Main Street Station and Trainshed (127-0172), also known as New Union Station and Seaboard 

Airline & Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Depot, symbolizes the importance of the rail terminal as 

an entrance gateway to Richmond and is an example of the influence of the French Ecole des 

Beaux Arts on American building. The building is a National Historic Landmark (NHL), listed in 

the NRHP under Criteria A and C, and is also a contributing element to both RF&P Railroad (076-

0301) and the Seaboard Air Line Railroad (127-6271), both listed below. Three of the four Build 

Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–ALine, and 6C) include disuse of the current station and construction of a new station elsewhere. 

Removal of the historic, and continued, use of this significant rail station would remove characterdefining attributes of the building—namely its use as a rail depot. This is especially notable as 

this property is an NHL due to its association with local, state, and national rail history. Three of 

the four Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G) would involve the restoration of intercity passenger service on the 

west side of Main Street Station and would include the construction of one to two multistory 

parking garages within the viewshed of the main station building and also require alterations to 

historic platforms, thus diminishing the integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, and association. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–ALine, 6C, 6D, 6F, and 6G would have an adverse effect on this resource. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-152 

The French Renaissance Revival-styled Railroad Y.M.C.A. (127-0344-0123) is notable for its 

architectural characteristics and for its importance as a community center to provide recreational 

space for railroad workers and their families in the area. It is eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion A for its importance to the early recreational and social history of this section of 

Richmond and under Criterion C for its architectural styling. Work associated with Build 

Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G involves the construction of one to two multistory parking decks and 

platform modifications, both of which would add a notable visual element within the viewshed 

of this resource. The parking garages and modified platforms have the potential to diminish the 

characteristics that render this resource eligible for the NRHP. FRA’s preliminary determination 

is that Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

The Richmond, Fredericksburg, & Potomac Railroad (076-0301) opened in 1836 and eventually 

spanned from the Potomac River to Richmond. It is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for 

its association with rail development in northern and central Virginia. The DC2RVA corridor 

includes the main rail line, spurs, and associated elements such as station houses, bridges, and 

other structures. Construction associated with several alternatives would result in removal or 

large-scale modifications to several contributing elements to the railroad district, including Main 

Street Station listed above and several bridges. The exact roster of bridges is under consideration 

but, at a minimum, this includes the Naomi Road Bridge and the Rappahannock River Bridge in 

Fredericksburg, the North Anna Bridge near Doswell, and several bridges and other rail 

structures in Richmond. FRA’s preliminary determination is that the Build Alternatives 1A 

through 1C, 2A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 5B through 5D–Ashcake, and 6A through 6G that include 

improvements on or expansion to the rail line, bridges, or structures between Arlington and Acca 

Yard in Richmond would have an adverse effect on this property. 

The historic Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor (127-6251) merged from several railroads in 

the early 1890s and represents the origins and growth of the railroad industry in the Richmond 

to Petersburg corridor., The historic predecessor of the CSXT A-Line, the line ran roughly parallel 

along what is today I-95, transporting rail travelers between Richmond and Florida. It is eligible 

for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with area transportation history. Like the 

RF&P listed above, construction of any one of the Build Alternatives in the Richmond area would 

result in modifications or reconstruction of several contributing elements to this railroad district. 

The exact list is pending, but this includes the CSXT A-Line bridge over the James River and 

potential contributing resources in the Centralia area. FRA’s preliminary determination is that 

portions of the CSXT A-Line improvements between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E), including the connection with the CSXT S-Line at Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

Also representing the post-Civil War trend of merging smaller operations, the Seaboard Air Line 

Railroad Corridor (127-6271) was founded in 1900. The historic predecessor to the CSXT S-Line 

from Main Street Station to Centralia, it roughly paralleled what is today I-85 from Richmond to 

Florida. It is also eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with area 

transportation history. Similar to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, work associated with 

improvements to the S-Line would include modifications to contributing elements to this 

resource such as Main Street Staton, the S-Line bridge over the James River, and other road and 

rail structures south of Richmond. FRA’s preliminary determination is that improvements 

between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G), 

including the connection with the CSXT A-Line at Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, and 6E) would have an adverse effect on this resource. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-153 

4.13.3 Battlefields 

Due to their expansive nature and multi-resourced nature, battlefields have been pulled from the 

list of above ground properties as mentioned above and are outlined here in a separate narrative. 

The resources were defined and mapped based on the American Battlefield Protection Program 

(ABPP)-defined Potential National Register (PotNR) boundaries, as determined in 2009. If PotNR 

boundaries were not available, DHR boundaries were used. In February 2016, DHR agreed to use 

these boundaries in the current analysis (Appendix R). 

There are 11 battlefields located in the APE. All 11 are associated with Civil War activities located 

in areas that were the site of numerous troop engagements during the war, notably 

Fredericksburg and surrounding counties, Hanover County, Henrico County, the City of 

Richmond, and Chesterfield County. 

FRA’s preliminary determinations of effect for historic resources in Virginia are listed in Tables 

4.13-5 and 4.13-6. 

Table 4.13-5: Summary of Preliminary Effect Determinations on Battlefields 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Potential Effect (Number of Resources) 

Adverse No Adverse No Effect 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 1A 0 0 0 

1B 0 0 0 

1C 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A 0 0 0 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 3A 0 0 3 

3B 0 3 0 

3C* 0 0 0 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 4A 0 1 0 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 5A 0 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 0 0 0 

5B 0 0 0 

5B–Ashcake 0 0 0 

5C* 0 0 0 

5C–Ashcake 0 0 0 

5D–Ashcake 0 0 0 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 6A 0 4 2 

6B–A-Line 0 4 2 

6B–S-Line 0 6 0 

6C 0 4 2 

6D 0 6 0 

6E 0 6 0 

6F 0 6 0 

6G 0 6 0 

* Partial Data; Only Phase IA reconnaissance studies were completed on the bypass options. As such, this count only includes previously recorded

resources. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Table 4.13-6: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Battlefields 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

111-5295 Battle of 

Fredericksburg I 

– – – – No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – 

111-5296 Battle of 

Fredericksburg II 

– – – – No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – 

088-5181 Salem Church 

Battlefield (Banks Ford Battlefield) 

– – – – No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – 

042-0123 North Anna Battlefield – – – – – – – No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – 

043-5108 Yellow Tavern 

Battlefield 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5320 Proctor's Creek 

Battlefield 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0307 Battle of Chaffin's 

Farm (New Market Heights Battlefield), New Market Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-5071 Darbytown & New 

Market Roads Battlefield, Route 5 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0147 Drewry's Bluff 

Battlefield (Fort Darling, Fort Drewry), Fort Darling Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

123-5025 Assault on Petersburg 

(Petersburg Battlefield II), Bermuda Hundred Road (Alt Route 697) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-155 

Coordination of these determinations is ongoing with DHR and relevant consulting parties. 

Based on preliminary dialogues with DHR, the Project would have No Adverse Effect on any of 

the 11 battlefields within the APE. As Project plans are confirmed, the work would be evaluated 

to assure that character-defining features of the battlefields in general, and contributing elements 

specifically, are not altered or diminished during the Project. Because FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that there would be no adverse effects to these battlefields, narratives are not 

presented below. See Section 3.13 for descriptions of these resources. 

4.13.4 Summary and Mitigation 

In summary, FRA’s preliminary determination is that 33 historic properties would be adversely 

affected by 1 or more of the Build Alternatives (Figure 4.13-1). Figures in the Cultural Resources 

Reports (Appendix R) show the potential impacts to these historic properties. FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that the remaining 125 historic properties in the APE would have no effect or no 

adverse effect resulting from any of the Build Alternatives. 

Where FRA determines that the Project will have an adverse effect on historic resources, efforts will 

be undertaken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. Efforts have been made by DRPT 

to identify Project alternatives that avoid adverse effects to Section 106 resources identified in this 

section. Where avoidance is not possible, FRA will identify measures to minimize and mitigate 

for impacts. Chapter 5 outlines measures to minimize harm to historic resources. Chapter 6 

describes the coordination that has taken place between DRPT and state historic preservation 

offices, resource owners, historic societies, and other consulting parties. 

A Programmatic Agreement was executed for the SEHSR project. Due to the nature of the DC2RVA 

Project, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) is underway to outline: (1) studies still required once a 

recommended Preferred Alternative has been selected (namely, additional Phase I and Phase II 

archaeological studies on the main corridor and road improvement areas and full cultural 

resource studies on the bypasses, if selected); and (2) tasks that would be undertaken to mitigate 

adverse effects. 

4.14 PARKLANDS, RECREATIONAL AREAS, AND REFUGES 

4.14.1 Effects 

Effects to parklands, recreational areas, and wildlife refuges, collectively referred to as parkland 

resources, were determined through overlay of the parkland boundaries with the permanent and 

temporary limits of disturbance for the Build Alternatives. Section 3.14 in Chapter 3 identifies all 

the parklands, recreational areas, and wildlife refuges identified in the study area. DRPT assumed 

that the proposed right-of-way would match the permanent limits of disturbance, and these areas 

would be permanently removed from use as a park, recreational area, or wildlife refuge. 

Seventeen (17) parkland and trail resources could potentially be impacted by the Build 

Alternatives. Six of the 17 facilities would have permanent impacts while the remainder would 

only have temporary impacts. Table 4.14-1 identifies the permanent and temporary impacts to 

parkland resources by Build Alternative. Figure 4.14-1 depicts the permanent impact areas. The 

No Build Alternative would have no impacts to parkland resources. 

Section 3.14 in Chapter 3 also identifies Section 4(f) recreational resources and Section 6(f) 

resources. These designations apply to some of the public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-156 

refuges in the study area and afford additional protection to these resources. See Chapter 5 for 

the Section 4(f) Evaluation and discussion of Section 4(f) impacts and mitigation. Section 6(f) 

impacts are discussed below. 

The permanent impacts associated with each of the Build Alternatives are discussed below. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), Build Alternatives 1B and 1C would impact Long Bridge Park. 

Permanent impacts range from 0.36 to 1.45 acres. Build Alternative 1B would have the greatest 

impact to this resource. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), the single Build Alternative 2A would have a 0.04-acre 

permanent impact to the Dog Run Park at Carlyle. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), none of the alternatives through or around 

Fredericksburg (Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C) would have permanent impacts to parkland 

resources. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), the single Build Alternative 4A would not have 

permanent impacts to parkland resources. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), permanent impacts to parkland resources are minimal. The four 

alternatives that include a new intercity passenger rail station at Ashcake Road (Build 

Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) would have a 0.01-acre 

permanent impact to Ashland Trolley Line. The alternatives that would add a third track, 

primarily on the east side of the right-of-way, through town (Build Alternatives 5B and 5B–

Ashcake) would have a 0.03-acre permanent impact to Carter Park. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), permanent impacts to parkland resources are minimal. Build 

Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–ALine, 6C, and 6E) would have the slightly higher permanent impact of 0.19 acre and would only 

impact Gates Mill Park. Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and 

Centralia (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) would have a 0.17-acre permanent 

impact to Walker’s Creek Retention Basin Park. 

Section 6(f) directs the United States Department of Interior (DOI) to assure that replacement 

lands of equal value, location, and usefulness are provided as conditions to such conversions. 

Consequently, where conversions of Section 6(f) lands are proposed for transportation projects, 

replacement lands would be necessary. There are no permanent impacts to Section 6(f) lands. 

George Washington Memorial Parkway, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military 

Park, and Pierson/Slaughter Pen Farm are Section 6(f) resources but would only have temporary 

impacts during construction and replacement lands would not be required. 

4.14.2 Mitigation 

Impacts to parkland, recreational areas, and wildlife refuges were avoided and minimized to the 

maximum extent possible. All potential impacts consist of minor amounts of additional right-ofway required for track construction that would not impact park functions. DRPT will coordinate 

these impacts with the park owners. Temporary impacts were also avoided and minimized to 

the greatest extent feasible. DRPT will make all efforts to return temporary easements back to 

pre-construction conditions and to avoid impacting the essential park functions during 

construction.
Table 4.14-1: Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Parkland Resources by Build Alternative (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Long Bridge Park

Crystal City Water 

Park

Old Town Greens 

Homeowners Association 

Dog Run Park at 

Carlyle 

George Washington 

Memorial Parkway Veterans Memorial 

Park

Mount Vernon Trail 

Pierson/Slaughter 

Pen Farm 

Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania National 

Military Park

Mtti Wildlif

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

1A P: 0.00 

T: 0.51 

– – – – – – – – 

1B P: 1.45 

T: 0.88 

– – – – – – – – 

1C P: 0.36 

T: 0.65 

– – – – – – – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A – P: 0.00 

T: 0.11 

P: 0.00 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.14 

P: 0.00 

T: 1.04 

P: 0.00 

T: 0.05 

P: 0 feet 

T: 20 feet 

– – 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A – – – – – – – P: 0.00 

T: 0.17 

P: 0.00 

T: 0.02 

3B – – – – – – – P: 0.00 

T: 0.17 

P: 0.00 

T: 0.02 

3C – – – – – – – – – 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A – – – – – – – – P: 0.00 

T: 1.09 

P

T

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

5A – – – – – – – – – 

5A–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – 

5B – – – – – – – – – 

5B–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – 

5C – – – – – – – – – 

5C–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – 

5D–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – – – – – – – – – 

6B–A-Line – – – – – – – – – 

6B–S-Line – – – – – – – – – 

6C – – – – – – – – – 

6D – – – – – – – – – 

6E – – – – – – – – – 

6F – – – – – – – – – 

6G – – – – – – – – – 

P: Permanent Impacts in Acres; T: Temporary Impacts in Acres
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-158 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 1B 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-159 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 1C 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-160 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-161 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 3A, 3B 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-162 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-163 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 

5C–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-164 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, 6G 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-165 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-166 

4.15 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 

This section summarizes the anticipated effects on the DC2RVA Project area transportation 

network and is presented at the same two scales as the Affected Environment Transportation 

Facilities section: Regional Scale and Corridor Scale. 

The Regional Scale Environmental Consequences include the following (in order of presentation): 

 DC2RVA train service through the corridor, including the type and number of increases 

in daily trips through the DC2RVA corridor, and associated ridership projections. 

 Effects due to increases in DC2RVA ridership along the corridor: 

- Effects on the regional roadway network from the DC2RVA Project, including the 

number of vehicles anticipated to be removed from the transportation network due to 

DC2RVA ridership. 

- Effects on adjacent roadways to the Amtrak stations that are being served by the 

DC2RVA intercity passenger trains. 

- Effects on parking needs at the Amtrak stations that are being served by the DC2RVA 

intercity passenger trains. 

The Corridor Scale Environmental Consequences include the following (in order of presentation): 

 Crossing improvements that are proposed at each roadway crossing as part of the 

DC2RVA Project, including presentation of: 

- Descriptions of the types of crossing treatments. 

- Crossing improvements at existing public and private at-grade crossings. 

- Crossing improvements at existing grade-separated crossings. 

- Build alternative improvements to other public roadways. 

- Summary of all proposed public roadway closures and grade separations. 

 Crossing improvement effects (qualitative) on connectivity and accessibility, including: 

- Effects of improvements at public at-grade crossings 

- Effects of improvements at private at-grade crossings 

- Effects of improvements at grade-separated crossings. 

- Relevance of Build Alternatives to existing quiet zones. 

- Effects on bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. 

 Quantitative traffic operational analysis (changes in volumes and level of service along 

roadways and through the intersections) to determine the effects of the public roadway 

closures that are proposed as part of the DC2RVA Project. 

 Quantitative analysis of the crossing improvement effects on vehicles at the public atgrade crossings (total daily vehicle delay). 

It is the intent of this section to provide a high-level overview of the transportation analysis and 

resulting effects that were conducted to support the decisions to be made for the DC2RVA Project. 

The Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) contains a full inventory of all methodology, data, 

and analyses summarized herein. In accordance with Project planning dates for physical impacts, 

analyses of transportation facilities are estimated for 2025; refer to Section 2.1.2 for details. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-167 

4.15.1 Regional Scale 

This section presents the future year 2025 conditions of the DC2RVA train service and associated 

increased ridership from a regional level, and the analysis of how those improvements are 

anticipated to affect the greater roadway network. Year 2025 is the current best estimate of when 

construction of the DC2RVA infrastructure could be completed and the new DC2RVA service 

would be placed in operation. 

4.15.1.1 DC2RVA Train Service and Ridership 

Under 2025 Build conditions, intercity passenger rail ridership is projected to increase due to 

increased train frequency, availability, and reliability, as well as trends in general population 

growth. The future year increases in ridership from the DC2RVA Project could affect the regional 

roadway network1 in the following ways: 

 Decreases in vehicles using the roadway network (i.e., mainly I-95) between Washington, 

D.C. and Richmond. Refer to Section 4.15.1.2 for this analysis.

 Increases in vehicles using the roadway network directly adjacent to the train station(s) 

that provide service, as well as increases in parking needs at those stations. Refer to Section 

4.15.1.3 and 4.15.1.4 for these analyses.

The DC2RVA Project would add nine new passenger rail round trips for 2025 Build conditions 

(refer to Chapter 2 for full details): 

 Four new interstate corridor (NC) passenger trains, with stops at the following stations 

within the DC2RVA corridor: 

- Alexandria 

- Fredericksburg 

- Richmond (station location within the city varies by Build Alternative) 

 Five new Northeast Regional passenger (VA) trains, with stops at the following stations 

within the DC2RVA corridor: 

- Alexandria 

- Woodbridge 

- Quantico 

- Fredericksburg 

- Ashland (station location within town varies by Build Alternative) 

- Richmond (station location within the city varies by Build Alternative) 

Table 4.15-1 presents the annual ridership at each station, represented as a total number of 

boardings and alightings (i.e., a total number of train passengers getting on and off of the 

train) for 2015, 2025 No Build, and 2025 Build conditions, by Build Alternative. As the station 

alternatives in Richmond drive the differences in ridership for Build conditions throughout 

the DC2RVA corridor, the annual ridership is presented by the seven station alternatives in 

the Richmond area. Ridership is the same for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line, so 

they are presented as a single Build Alternative 6B. The table also compares each of the Build 

 

1 Changes in the number and operating characteristics (i.e., type, speed, and length) of trains can have a direct effect 

on individual at-grade highway-rail crossings in terms of delay experienced while trains are traversing the crossing. 

These analyses are provided on the Corridor Scale, which are included in Section 4.15.2. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-168 

Table 4.15-1: Annual DC2RVA Ridership1 at Station in Project Area (boardings and alightings2) 

Alternative 

Station 

Alexandria Woodbridge Quantico Fredericksburg 

Ashland 

Station 

Staples 

Mill Road 

Boulevard 

Road 

Broa

Stree

Existing–2015 174,238 23,836 34,574 127,535 28,013 351,156 – – No Build–2025 208,496 31,191 37,945 168,627 32,694 407,119 – – Build Alternatives–2025: Annual Ridership (% Change Compared to 2025 No Build Alternative) 6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 

233,602 

(12%) 

82,694 

(165%) 

45,313 

(19%) 

305,177 

(81%) 

47,368 

(45%) 

714,795 

(76%) 

– – 

6B3 (Boulevard 

Station Only) 

227,706 

(9%) 

82,304 

(164%) 

44,943 

(18%) 

311,500 

(85%) 

50,437 

(54%) 

– 700,152 

(new) 

– 

6C (Broad Street Station Only) 

224,571 

(8%) 

81,140 

(160%) 

44,278 

(17%) 

311,761 

(85%) 

54,002 

(65%) 

– – 677,6

(ne

6D (Main Street Station Only) 

228,278 

(9%) 

82,521 

(165%) 

45,118 

(19%) 

314,017 

(86%) 

55,771 

(71%) 

– – – 

6E (Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) 

230,896 

(11%) 

82,171 

(163%) 

45,398 

(20%) 

301,810 

(79%) 

45,701 

(40%) 

588,610 

(45%) 

– – 

6F (Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) 

230,840 

(11%) 

83,057 

(166%) 

45,257 

(19%) 

303,303 

(80%) 

44,165 

(35%) 

417,774 

(3%) 

– – 

6G (Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) 

233,030 

(12%) 

83,467 

(168%) 

45,527 

(20%) 

303,120 

(80%) 

44,388 

(36%) 

514,975 

(26%) 

– – 

1 The annual ridership represents the DC2RVA Project. It excludes passengers on VRE, the Auto Train, and the long distance trains to Georgia/Florida. Ridership fo

only differ based on which station option is used in Richmond. 

2 Boardings and alightings represent train passengers getting on and off of the train, respectively. 3 The DC2RVA passenger train ridership is the same for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line, so they are presented in this table as a single Build Alternative 6B
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-169 

conditions to the No Build, as a percentage of total ridership. The total DC2RVA ridership 

throughout the corridor is anticipated to increase approximately 50 percent by 2025 for all Build 

Alternatives (ranging from a low of 48 percent for Build Alternative 6C Broad Street Station Only, to 

a high of 56 percent for Build Alternative 6F, Full Service at Staples Mill and Main Street Stations). 

4.15.1.2 Ridership Effects on Regional Roadways 

The purpose of this analysis is to determine the effects of increased DC2RVA ridership on the 

number of vehicles that use the regional roadway system each day. 

Future year roadway traffic volumes for the No Build condition were developed by applying a 

two percent growth rate (linear growth, non-compounded) to existing traffic volumes. Refer to 

the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) for details of the methodology of determining the 

growth rate, which was based on examining growth trends in historical traffic volume data, and 

of determining the associated future year regional roadway network Build conditions. 

Table 4.15-2 summarizes the estimated traffic on the regional roadway for 2025 No Build 

conditions, as well as existing conditions (2015) for reference. The data indicate an overall increase 

of 20 percent in total VMT2 by 2025, without the DC2RVA rail improvements. The I-95 facility 

represents approximately 280 directional roadway miles (including I-395) of the total regional 

roadway miles between Washington, D.C. and Richmond within the DC2RVA corridor. I-95 is 

projected to carry approximately 45.4 million vehicle miles annually by 2025, which represents 

almost 50 percent of the total vehicles miles in the regional area. 

Table 4.15-2: Regional Roadway Network, No Build Conditions 

Directional 

Measure 

Interstate 

and U.S. 

Routes 

State 

Primary 

Route 

State 

Secondary 

Route 

Urban 

Routes Total 

2015 Total 

(Regional 

Scale) 

ADT 47,856,880 14,744,998 5,748,709 1,029,843 69,380,430 

Length 895.0 530.7 422.2 70.8 1,918.7 

VMT 60,815,804 13,903,153 3,658,472 618,849 78,996,278 

2025 No Build 

Total 

(Regional 

Scale) 

ADT 57,240,582 17,636,174 6,875,907 1,231,773 82,984,436 

Length 895.0 530.7 422.2 70.8 1,918.7 

VMT 72,740,471 16,629,261 4,375,819 740,192 94,485,743 

The DC2RVA improvements are expected to result in an increase of up to 854,000 annual rail 

passenger trips 3 (compared to No Build conditions). By shifting this travel to rail, DRPT 

anticipates that up to 2,050 VPD and 250,000 daily vehicle miles would be removed from the 

parallel roads of I-95 and U.S. Route 1 in the 123-mile Project corridor – annually, this equates to 

 

2 A vehicle mile is a measure of total travel on a particular roadway or within an overall area; it is calculated by 

multiplying the number of vehicles traveling on a particular roadway by the total length of that roadway. 

3 This value represents trips going to, from, and through the study corridor. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-170 

removing 656,000 vehicles per year and 80 million annual vehicle miles from the system4. This 

represents a reduction in vehicle miles both annually and daily of approximately 0.6 percent. 

4.15.1.3 Ridership Effects on Roadway Network at Amtrak Stations 

The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the effects on major roadways that are located adjacent 

to the Amtrak stations that are served by the DC2RVA passenger trains. To complete this 

assessment, the annual DC2RVA passenger train ridership (as presented in Table 4.15-1) was 

used to estimate daily trips by mode, and the resulting motor vehicle trips were compared to the 

daily volumes of the adjacent roadways 5 to determine the percent change in traffic due to 

increases in DC2RVA ridership. The Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) includes 

estimates of the daily number of passengers and associated daily number of motor vehicle trips, 

as well as associated changes in daily traffic at every station for each Build Alternative. 

A summary of the ridership effects on the station roadway network is presented in Table 4.15-3. 

The results indicate the following overall corridor-wide results. 

 For each Build Alternative, the DC2RVA ridership equates to over 2,000 new daily motor 

vehicle trips at each station (for each single-station alternative) or combination of stations 

(for each two-station alternative). 

 Most adjacent roadways to the stations will experience nominal increases in traffic6 (under 

1 percent increase in total daily traffic) for most Build conditions. In general, the adjacent 

roadways at the stations are multiple lane facilities with high carrying capacity that could 

accommodate increases in vehicular trips due to the DC2RVA Project. 

 Overall, the highest increases in daily traffic on adjacent roadways due to the DC2RVA 

ridership are anticipated at the Fredericksburg station where traffic is projected to 

increase approximately 7 to 8 percent on the adjacent roadways of Princess Anne Street 

and Caroline Street for all Build Alternatives. These facilities carry some of the lowest 

existing and future daily volumes on adjacent roadways to stations for the project. 

 Within Ashland, the location of the station has minimal effect on the results. Increases to 

traffic are nominal (less than 1 percent change in daily traffic) for both the existing station 

location and the station relocation to Ashcake Road. 

 For the single station Build Alternatives in Richmond, the greatest increases in traffic on 

adjacent roadways are anticipated for the two stations that are not currently served by 

any passenger trains (Boulevard and Broad Street stations), which are projected to 

increase approximately 5 percent. Traffic increases adjacent to the Main Street Station and 

Staples Mill Station are projected to increase approximately 4 percent and 2 percent, 

respectively. 

 

4 Average daily to annual equivalence based on assumed ratio of 320. 

5 Adjacent roadway(s) at stations were defined as those that vehicles (including personal motor vehicle, transit, or 

drop-off service such as taxis) could use to access the station. The starting adjacent roadway values were based on the 

DC2RVA Project not being build, i.e. the No Build. 

6 While increases in DC2RVA ridership would cause increases in traffic adjacent to DC2RVA stations, the levels of 

increase in ridership do not directly correlate to the same increases in traffic. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-171 

 For the two-station Build Alternatives in Richmond, the traffic increases vary by station; 

however, all projected traffic increases are anticipated to be under 2 percent at both 

Staples Mill Road and Main Street stations for all Build conditions. 

 Reductions in traffic due to the DC2RVA ridership are anticipated at stations that are 

being served in the No Build condition but are not being served in the Build condition. 

4.15.1.4 Ridership Effects on Parking Needs at Stations 

DRPT used an Amtrak-approved method to determine the parking demand at each Amtrak 

station in the DC2RVA corridor7. Parking factors vary by the type and location of station. There 

are three types of Amtrak stations within the DC2RVA corridor: Large (fully staffed, multiple 

transit services and amenities, multiple tracks and platforms); Medium (lower levels of staff, 

supporting transit services); and Caretaker (enclosed waiting areas, limited amenities, not fully 

staffed). Additionally, stations were categorized as city center (high density urban) or suburban 

(medium density) 8 . The analysis approach takes into account the different characteristics of 

regional, state corridor, or long distance passenger train riders and includes average duration of 

trip. Refer to the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) for detailed assumptions, as well as 

results for each station alternative. 

Alexandria Depot 

 

7 Amtrak recommends that parking capacities at its stations should be based on at least a twenty-year projection of 

ridership growth. Accordingly, DRPT determined it appropriate to conduct the DC2RVA parking analysis based on 

projections for the year 2045. 

8 It was assumed that a suburban station requires more parking than in a city center. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-172 

Table 4.15-3: Summary of Ridership Impacts on Station Roadways, % Change1 in Traffic on Adjacent Road

Intercity Passenger Trains 

2025 Build 

Alternatives 

Station 

Alexandria Woodbridge Quantico Fredericksburg 

Ashland 

Station 

Staples Mill 

Road 

Boulevard 

Road 

6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 

0.2% 0.4% 0.8% 7.7% 0.3% 2.2% 0.0% 

6B3 (Boulevard 

Station Only) 

0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 8.1% 0.3% -3.0% 5.2% 

6C (Broad Street Station Only) 

0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 8.1% 0.3% -3.0% 0.0% 

6D (Main Street Station Only) 

0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 8.1% 0.3% -3.0% 0.0% 

6E (Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) 

0.1% 0.3% 0.8% 7.3% 0.3% 1.3% 0.0% 

6F (Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) 

0.1% 0.4% 0.8% 7.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 

6G (Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) 

0.1% 0.4% 0.8% 7.3% 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 

1 The % changes shown in this table compare the 2025 Build to the 2025 No Build conditions. For details of each Build Alternative, refer to the Transportation Te

presented by the Richmond area alternatives, because the ridership forecasts developed for this Project only differ based on which station option is used in Richmond

2 Adjacent roadway(s) at stations were defined as those that vehicles (including personal motor vehicle, transit, or drop-off service such as taxis) could use to access t3 The DC2RVA passenger train ridership is the same for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line, so they are presented in this table as a single Build Alternative 6

Note that the station(s) served within Richmond for each Build Alternatives are highlighted for ease of reference. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-173 

DRPT calculated a range of daily parking space demand (a high and low range) based on 

projected DC2RVA ridership. A summary of the results is provided in Table 4-15.4. 

Table 4-15.4: Summary of Daily Parking Space Demand by Station 

Station Station Size / Type 

Daily Parking Space 

Demand: Low 

Daily Parking Space 

Demand: High 

Alexandria Medium / Suburban 140 190 

Woodbridge Caretaker / Suburban 35 47 

Fredericksburg Medium / Suburban 142 191 

Ashland Caretaker / Suburban 29 39 

Boulevard Road Large / Suburban 459 620 

Broad Street Large / Suburban 446 603 

Staples Mill: 

Build Alternative 6A Large / Suburban 467 632 

Build Alternative 6E Large / Suburban 411 556 

Build Alternative 6F Large / Suburban 301 406 

Build Alternative 6G Large / Suburban 344 465 

Main Street: 

Build Alternative 6D Large / City Center 193 261 

Build Alternative 6E Medium / Suburban 49 66 

Build Alternative 6F Large / Suburban 199 269 

Build Alternative 6G Medium / Suburban 120 163 

The results indicate the following overall corridor-wide results. 

 The daily parking space demand does not vary by Build Alternative for the stations with 

a single location (Alexandria; Woodbridge; Fredericksburg; Ashland; Boulevard Road; 

and Broad Street). 

 At Staples Mill Road Station, sizing and type do not vary. Build Alternative 6A would 

require the highest daily parking space demand at 632 spaces (high demand), which is a 56 

percent increase over the Build Alternative 6F which requires 406 spaces (high demand). 

 At Main Street Station, the station size and type varies by Build Alternative. Build Alternatives 

6D and 6E, in which it is defined as a large station, would require the most daily parking (260 

to 270 spaces, high demand), while Build Alternative 6E, in which Main Street is defined as a 

medium station, requires the least amount of parking (66 spaces, high demand). 

The conceptual layouts based on these parking needs are shown in Chapter 2. These conceptual 

layouts for each station were based on the physical characteristics of the station site, the DC2RVA 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-174 

basis of design, and the functional requirements of Amtrak. In general, the high end of the range 

of the daily parking space demand was used (with rounding) when developing the parking 

layouts; however, for the Alexandria station, the conceptual layout reflects the existing property 

constraints and not the calculated parking space demand. 

4.15.2 Corridor Scale 

This section presents the potential effects of the DC2RVA Project on the highway-rail crossings 

and connecting roadway network. It includes descriptions of the improvements proposed at each 

crossing as well as analysis of the effects of those improvements on vehicles using the crossings 

and on connectivity to the transportation network. All analyses in this section are for the 

permanent Build condition; for temporary construction-related effects, refer to Section 4.19. 

4.15.2.1 DC2RVA Build Alternative Crossing Improvements 

Types of Crossing Treatments 

The following five types of crossing treatments are included within the DC2RVA Build Alternatives; 

these were based on FRA guidelines, life-cycle cost efficiency, and safety needs of the geometry of 

parallel/intersecting crossing roadways and operating conditions within the DC2RVA corridor. 

Other site improvements (i.e., geometric and/or safety improvements) to improve overall roadway 

and/or railroad safety, as part of or in addition to these treatments, are not precluded from the design 

of any of these treatments. It is anticipated that changes to crossing treatments that could occur during 

final design would have limited effects compared to the treatment types developed and analyzed in 

this Draft EIS. In the unanticipated event that substantive changes are developed as part of final 

design efforts, the impacts of these changes would be assessed at that time. 

Grade Separation.

A highway-rail crossing that occurs at two different vertical 

levels (i.e., the roadway pavement and the railroad tracks 

do not intersect). Per FHWA 9 , “the decision to grade 

separate at [an existing] highway-rail crossing is primarily 

a matter of economics” as a long-term investment. Benefits 

of grade-separated crossings (compared to at-grade 

crossings) include reduction in collisions, vehicle and rail 

delay, and maintenance costs. 

Four-Quadrant Gates.

A system of gates (entrance and exit gates on all roadway 

approaches) designed to provide full closure of the crossing 

when a train is approaching or occupying the crossing, thus 

eliminating the opportunity for vehicles to navigate around 

a single lowered gate. Design can include detection inside 

the gates to ensure that vehicles do not get “trapped” inside 

lowered gates. 

 

9 Quoted from FHWA’s Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (Revised Second Edition August 2007) 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-175 

Median Treatment with Gates.

A system of physical improvements designed to impede 

the movement of vehicles into the opposing traffic lane and 

around the single lowered gate (two-quadrant gate). 

Treatments include barrier wall systems, wide raised 

medians, and mountable raised curb systems with vertical 

median separators. Considerations include cost-benefit 

(median treatments are generally less expensive to install 

than four-quadrant gate systems) and absence/distance of 

nearby intersections and driveways. 

Closure.

Per FHWA10, “closure of [an existing at-grade] crossing to 

highway traffic should always be considered as an 

alternative.” Benefits include reduction in collisions, 

vehicle and rail delay, and rail maintenance costs. 

Considerations include elimination of redundant crossings, 

convenience/travel cost of vehicles using an adjacent 

crossing, and effects on adjacent crossings and connecting 

roadway network due to diversion of vehicles. 

Locking Gate (private crossings only).

This term refers to a moveable barrier gate that is engaged 

(i.e., closed) and only opens on demand, and would be 

implemented in accordance with FRA’s 2009 High Speed 

Passenger Rail Safety Strategy guidelines11. The locking gate 

could be manual (requiring property owners to exit their 

vehicle to manually interact with the gate) or more 

automated (e.g., key card access to open and close the gate), 

the details of which would be determined during final 

design. 

No Action.

Considered at crossings where the existing crossing 

treatment is sufficient to accommodate the DC2RVA 

Project. 

The example images above are representative of a typical application; they are included for illustrative purposes only.

 

10 Quoted from FHWA’s Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (Revised Second Edition August 2007) 

11 FRA’s 2009 High Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy guidance states for track speeds between 80mph and 110mph, 

private highway-rail grade crossings should be treated with “automated warning or locked gate with signal 

interlock”. Other types of private gates were considered during the alternatives development process, but from a safety 

standpoint, the locked gate treatment was considered to be the better candidate by restricting access to the crossing to 

the private crossing owner and allowing access only for a specific set of conditions as opposed to being open 24 hours 

a day excluding train events. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-176 

Virginia state code12 restricts the creation of new at-grade crossings; this means that any new 

crossings of existing roadways due to the DC2RVA Project should be grade-separated, with 

potential roadway realignment and/or closure. As part of any Build Alternative for the DC2RVA 

Project, every existing or new at-grade crossing should be grade-separated, closed, or have 

appropriate crossing treatment that is connected into the train detection circuitry13 and physically 

impedes vehicles from accessing the tracks when a train is approaching or occupying the crossing. 

Existing or future year roadway capacity improvements, other than those that are directly due to 

actions of this Project, are under the purview of VDOT and/or local governments and are 

excluded from the DC2RVA analyses. For example, if a Build Alternative of the DC2RVA Project 

consolidates two adjacent crossings, assessing if roadway improvements that are directly related 

to that traffic diversion are required is part of this Project and would be evaluated as part of the 

environmental consequences; however, assessing if roadway improvements are needed due to 

increases in overall traffic due to regional growth (i.e., No Build conditions) is outside the 

purview of this Project. 

Crossing Improvements at Existing Public and Private At-Grade Crossings 

Decisions regarding whether an existing at-grade public or private roadway crossing should be 

eliminated (grade-separated or closed) or improved through installation of new or additional 

crossing treatments depended on several factors, including FHWA crossing elimination guidance 

criteria for public roadways14, as well as the identification and analysis of site-specific conditions 

by the DRPT team15: 

 Traffic Data and Traffic Operations 

 Train Data and Rail Operations 

 Safety/Geometric Deficiencies 

 Environmental Resources 

 Engineering Feasibility 

 

12 The applicable state law can be found at: https://vacode.org/56-363/. 

13 The design and construction of crossings will comply with all applicable safety standards, including positive train 

control. Positive train control is a new system being designed to automatically stop a train before certain types of 

accidents occur. Specifically, positive train control, as mandated by Congress in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (RSIA), is being designed to prevent train-to-train collisions; derailments caused by excessive speed; unauthorized 

incursions by trains onto sections of track where maintenance activities are taking place; and movement of a train 

through a track switch left in the wrong position. 

14 FHWA’s Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition provides guidance criteria and details 

physical and operational improvements for highway-rail at-grade crossings to enhance safety and operation of 

roadway and rail traffic through the crossings. Specifically, the handbook outlines analysis methodologies for 

consideration of traffic control devices or other measures at every public roadway-rail at-grade crossing and sets forth 

11 conditions for which public at-grade crossings “should be considered for grade separation or otherwise eliminated” 

if any one or more of the set thresholds are met or exceeded. FHWA Rail-Roadway Crossing Handbook can be found 

here: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/com_roaduser/07010/07010.pdf. 

15 Site-specific condition evaluation was based on project site visits, aerial and/or street-view photography, and VDOT 

and FRA online databases. The level of detail documented for the site-specific conditions was intended to support 

identification of feasibility considerations for each proposed action at the crossing location. 

 Adjacent Property Uses. 

 Preliminary Cost-Benefit 

 Accessibility 

 Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

 Special Uses at Crossings 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-177 

The methodology to determine the crossing treatment at new crossings followed a similar sitespecific process as described above, with an emphasis on roadway network connectivity and 

accessibility to adjacent crossings and land uses. 

Based on the above, DRPT developed a crossing improvement recommendation for each crossing16 for 

the Draft EIS, which can vary by Build Alternative. It is anticipated that, during final design, 

additional crossing diagnostics would be performed based on the standards of practice at that time. 

Summary tables of total type of crossing improvement for each Build Alternative for public and 

private crossings are provided in Tables 4.15-5 and 4.15-6, respectively. 

At-Grade Crossing at Vaughan Road in Ashland, VA 

 

16 The proposed crossing improvements that DRPT developed were based on the Build condition of adding one 

additional track throughout the DC2RVA corridor. It was intended that the primary proposed actions resulting from 

the evaluation could be altered for other Build condition scenarios based on detailed engineering analyses and design 

considerations. For example, for Hermitage Road (S-Line crossing), DRPT initially recommended additional median 

treatment; however, during the design of Build Alternative 6B–S-Line, it was determined that the potential for risk to 

motorists at this crossing increases significantly with passenger trains accelerating and decelerating toward the 

proposed Boulevard Station. Accordingly, the Hermitage Road crossing was proposed to be grade-separated as part 

of this build alternative. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-178 

Table 4.15-5: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements, Summary by Build Alternative 

Alternative Area Alternative Description 

Proposed Crossing Improvements1

Grade 

Separation 

Crossing 

Closure 

Four-Quadrant 

Gates 

Media

Treatm

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

1A, 1B, and 1C 

RO 2-Track East Alignment, RO 2-Track West Alignment, and RO 1 Track East & West 

0 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A3 Add 1 Track East or West 0 1 2 0 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A No Additional Track 0 0 3 1 3B Add Main Track East of Existing 1 0 2 1 3C 2-Track Bypass (East) 0 0 5 4 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A Add 1 Track East or West 0 1 4 2 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

5A and 5B 

No Additional Track; 

and Add 1 Track East 

2 1 7 1 

5A–Ashcake, 

5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, 

No Additional Track (Relocate Station); Add 1 Track East (Relocate Station); and Add Main Track and Center Existing; 

2 0 8 1 

5C 2-Track West Bypass 0 1 9 1 5C

–Ashcake 2-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station) 0 0 10 1 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

6A, 6B–A-Line, and 6E 

Staples Mill Road Station Only; Boulevard Station Only (A-Line); and Split Service Main Street/Staples Mill 

3 4 2 1 

6B

–S-Line Boulevard Station Only (S-Line) 4 5 4 3 

6C Broad Street Station Only 3 4 2 2 6D, 6F, and 6G Main Street Station Only; 

Full Service. Main Street/Staples Mill; and Shared Service, Main Street/Staples Mill 

3 5 4 4 

1 "Crossing Closure" can include construction of a new roadway connector to provide access. "Median Treatment" can include raised medians (new or extension of exist

raised curbs with vertical median tubes, with gates. "No action required" includes existing crossings with existing treatment that meets the DC2RVA criteria; existing 

the Build Alternative (bypass alignments only); or new crossings of public roadways that do not require an action due to property acquisition (bypass alignments). 

2 "New” public crossings are provided as a summary total for reference and include crossings that would be grade-separated, closed/consolidated with adjacent crossing

or realigned. The exception is for Build Alternative 6C (Broad Street Station), which includes two new at-grade public roadway crossings as part of the station improv

3 Build Alternative 2A includes the proposed improvement of four-quadrant gates at Potomac Avenue, if not installed by others as part of the Powells Creek–Arkendal

Note that all crossings may require minor safety and/or geometric improvements related to construction of the Build Alternative (i.e., moving existing gates to accomm

This table does not include potential effects to other non-crossing roadways that may be required as part of the Build Alternative. 
ENVIRONMENTAL 

Table 4.15-6: Private At-Grade Crossing Improvements, Summary by Build Alternative 

Alternative Area Alternative Description 

Proposed Crossing Improvement 

Crossing 

Closure 

Four-Quadrant 

Gates 

Locking 

Gate 

No A

Requ

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

1A, 1B, and 1C 

RO 2-Track East Alignment; RO 2-Track West Alignment; and RO 1 Track East & West 

0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A Add 1 Track East or West 0 3 1 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A and 3B 

No Additional Track; and 

Add Main Track East of Existing 

0 0 0 

3C 2-Track East Bypass 1 0 4 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A Add 1 Track East or West 0 0 10 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 

5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

No Additional Track; Add 1 Track East of Existing; Add Main Track / Center Existing 

0 0 0 

5C and 5C–Ashcake 

2-Track West Bypass 0 0 0 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E 

Staples Mill Road Station Only; Boulevard Station Only (A-Line); Broad Street Station Only; and Split Service, Main Street/Staples Mill 

0 0 0 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G 

Boulevard Station Only (S-Line); Main Street Station Only; Full Service, Main Street/Staples Mill; and Shared Service, Main Street/Staples Mill 

0 2 2 

1 “No action required" in the above table includes existing crossings with existing treatment that meets the DC2RVA criteria; or new crossings of public roadways t

to property acquisition or alternate access (bypass alignments). 

2 "New Private Crossings" in the above table are provided as a summary total for reference, and include crossings that would be closed/consolidated with adjace

acquisitions; or realigned. Note that all crossings may require minor safety and/or geometric improvements related to construction of the Build Alternative (i.e., moving existing gates to accom
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-180 

As shown by the summary at-grade crossing improvement data: 

 DRPT proposes that most of the existing at-grade public roadways remain at grade with 

the addition of four-quadrant gates or gates with median treatment as appropriate to 

provide a corridor with increased safety for the DC2RVA Project. 

 DRPRT proposes that most of the existing private at-grade crossings have locking gates 

in all Build Alternatives, unless the property is acquired or alternate access can be 

provided. Four-quadrant gates are proposed at private crossing locations where sitespecific safety, geometric, and/or operating conditions were determined to preclude use 

of locking gates. See the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) for details. 

 Most new crossings occur in Build Alternative 3C (Fredericksburg Bypass) and Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake (Ashland Bypass). 

 Build Alternative 6C (Broad Street Station Only) includes two new at-grade public 

roadway crossings on West Leigh Street as part of the station improvement design, which 

would require a variance of Virginia State Code and/or coordination with VDOT. 

Each proposed crossing improvement for public at-grade roadways is presented in Figures 4.15-

1 through 4.15-13. Additionally, a list of each public roadway closure and grade separation is 

provided at the end of this section. 

Full methodology of the crossing improvement evaluation process, as well as detailed lists of the 

crossing roadways and figures showing the proposed crossing improvements at private 

crossings, are provided in the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S). 

Crossing Improvements at Existing Grade-Separated Crossings 

All existing grade-separated crossings (both public and private) in the rail corridor would be 

maintained as part of all Build Alternative designs. The proposed crossing improvements at the 

existing grade-separated crossings consist of one of the following: 

 No action required (i.e., the existing structure is sufficient to accommodate the DC2RVA 

Project) 

 Extend the existing structure (i.e., widen either roadway structure for roadway overpasses 

or rail structure for roadway underpasses) 

 Build a new structure 

These three types of crossing improvements are functionally equivalent because the existing 

operations of the crossing roadway (i.e., the number and type of lanes) are not modified as part 

of the Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative Improvements to other Roadways 

In addition to the highway-rail crossing roadways, two public roadways that run parallel to and 

generally adjacent to the railroad tracks are included in the Build Alternative improvements, as 

follows. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-181 

Figure 4.15-1: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-182 

Figure 4.15-2: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 3A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-183 

Figure 4.15-3: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 3B 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-184 

Figure 4.15-4: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 3C 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-185 

Figure 4.15-5: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 4A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-186 

Figure 4.15-6: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 5A, 5B 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-187 

Figure 4.15-7: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 

5B–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-188 

Figure 4.15-8: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 5C 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-189 

Figure 4.15-9: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 5C–Ashcake 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-190 

Figure 4.15-10: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6E 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-191 

Figure 4.15-11: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 6B–S-Line 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-192 

Figure 4.15-12: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 6C 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-193 

Figure 4.15-13: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, 6G 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-194 

 The Build Alternatives that include the addition of a third track through town (Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) require the closure of the eastern section 

of Railroad Avenue / Center Street between England / Thompson Street and Maiden 

Lane. At this location Railroad Avenue / Center Street17 runs adjacent and parallel to the 

railroad tracks within the Town of Ashland. The portion of Railroad Avenue / Center 

Street on the eastern side of the rail corridor between England / Thompson Street and 

Maiden Lane conflicts with the addition of the third track. All other portions of Railroad 

Avenue / Center Street, on either side of the rail corridor within the Town of Ashland, 

would be realigned, as required, to accommodate the design of the Build conditions and 

remain open to traffic after completion of construction. 

 The proposed additional track through the Richmond Area conflicts with one public 

roadway that is located adjacent and parallel to the railroad tracks. Dalebrook Drive from 

Bellbluff Drive to southern terminus of Dalebrook Drive would be required to be 

realigned without change to existing operations as part of all Build Alternatives. 

Summary of All Proposed Public Roadway Closures and Grade Separations 

For ease of reference, a summary of the public roadway improvements that are proposed as part 

of each Build Alternative is provided here. Unless specified below, all other public roadway 

crossings would either maintain the existing at-grade condition with crossing improvements of 

either four-quadrant gates or median treatment with gates, or do not require any action. 

Alternative Area 1 (Arlington): There are no public roadway closures or grade separations 

within Area 1 as part of any Build Alternative. 

Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia): There are no grade separations proposed within the 

single Build Alternative 2A. One closure is proposed at Mount Hope Church Road crossing. 

Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg): As shown in Table 4.15-7, there are no proposed public 

roadway closures through Fredericksburg. One grade separation is proposed at Landsdowne 

Road in Build Alternative 3B only. Four grade separations are proposed along the new alignment 

portion of the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C). 

Table 4.15-7: Public Roadway Closures and Grade Separations in Fredericksburg Area 

Alternative Area Alternative Grade Separate Landsdowne Road 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A 

3B 

3C 

This table only shows the proposed improvements of grade separation and closure for public roadways.

 

17 Railroad Avenue / Center Street operates as two one-way roadways (one on each side of the rail line) through the 

Town of Ashland. Based on inventory of physical street signage, the Railroad Avenue designation is generally used 

closest to the center of town (near England Street) and the Center Street designation is used elsewhere. For ease of 

reference, these roadways will be designated as “Railroad Avenue / Center Street” with callouts to the appropriate 

side of the tracks, as necessary, as well as to/from limits, in place of any “N” or “S” designation in the transportation 

analysis for the Draft EIS. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-195 

Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia): There are no proposed grade separations within the single 

Build Alternative 4A. One closure is proposed at Colemans Mill Road crossing. 

Alternative Area 5 (Ashland): As shown in Table 4.15-8, each Build Alternative in Ashland 

contains some combination of the following closures and separations: 

 All Build Alternatives except for the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–

Ashcake) will require two grade separations as part of this project: W. Vaughan Road 

crossing and Ashcake Road crossing. 

 All Build Alternatives that include station platform improvements at the existing station 

location within town require one roadway crossing closure at College Avenue crossing to 

accommodate the platform improvements at the existing station. 

 The Build Alternatives that include the addition of a third track through town (Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) require the closure of the eastern section of 

Center Street / Railroad Avenue between England / Thompson Street and Maiden Lane. 

 The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) will require one roadway 

closure at Independence Road and six grade separations along the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) (not listed in Table 4.15-8). 

Table 4.15-8: Public Roadway Closures and Grade Separations in Ashland Area 

Area Alternative 

Grade Separate 

West Vaughan 

Crossing 

Grade 

Separate 

Ashcake 

Crossing 

Close 

College 

Avenue 

Crossing 

Close Center Street, 

South of England 

Street to Maiden 

Lane 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A   

5A–Ashcake   

5B    

5B–Ashcake   

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

5D–Ashcake   

This table only shows the proposed improvements of grade separation and closure for public roadways. 

Alternative Area 6 (Richmond): As shown in Table 4.15-9, each Build Alternative in Richmond 

contains some combination of the following closures and grade separations, the need for which 

is driven by the at-grade crossing evaluation that was completed by DRPT as part of this project: 

 All Build Alternatives grade separate Hungary Road near Staples Mill Road Station and 

close Old Lane near the junction of the CSXT A-Line and S-Line at Centralia. 

 All Build Alternatives that use the A-Line close Bassett Avenue, Terminal Avenue, and 

Thurston Road, and grade separate Broad Rock Boulevard and Walmsley Boulevard. 

 All Build Alternatives that use the S-Line close St James Street, N 2nd Street/Valley Road, 

Dale/Trenton Avenue, and Brinkley Road, and grade separate Hospital Street and E 

Commerce Drive. 

 Build Alternative 6B–S-Line grade separates the S-Line crossing of Hermitage Road, 

which is proposed for safety considerations due to proximity of trains decelerating and 

accelerating to the new Boulevard Road Station.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-196 

Table 4.15-9: Public Roadway Closures and Grade Separations in Richmond Area 

Alternative Grade Separate Hungary Road Close Bassett Avenue Grade Separate Broad Rock Boulevard Close Terminal Avenue Grade Separate Walmsley Boulevard Close Thurston Road Close Old Lane Grade Separate Hermitage Road (S-Line Crossing) Close St James Street Close N 2nd Street/ Valley Road Grade Separate Hospital Street Grade Separate E Commerce Road Close Dale / Trenton Avenue Close Brinkley Road 

6A        

6B–A-Line        

6B–S-Line         

6C        

6D        

6E        

6F        

6G        

This table only shows the proposed improvements of grade separation and closure for public roadways. 

4.15.2.2 DC2RVA Crossing Improvement Effects on Connectivity and Accessibility 

The purpose of this analysis is to qualitatively identify locations where existing accessibility and 

connectivity of the roadway network may be affected by the DC2RVA Project as compared to the 

No Build condition. These locations will be moved forward for further quantitative analysis (refer 

to Section 4.15.2.4.). 

Accessibility and connectivity to public roadways and private property driveways and access 

were considered. The identification was conducted at each highway-rail crossing; however, both 

the crossing roadway and adjacent connecting roadway network within the limits of disturbance 

were evaluated. The determination of "no effect"18 is defined as maintaining existing capacity and 

connectivity to the roadway network, as follows: 

 No increases or decreases to carrying capacity of public roadways. 

 All existing movements on the crossing roadway are maintained. 

All existing parcel access is maintained, unless the design requires a full property acquisition. The 

results of this process are summarized by type of crossing in the sections below. Refer to the 

Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) for full details of the process and results of the 

evaluation. 

 

18 “No effect” does not preclude minor changes to location of any access points within the same property, if needed, to 

facilitate design and construction of the project. For properties with existing access to the crossing roadway, if at least 

one access to that property area is maintained or the parcel was a full property acquisition, the “no effect” is considered 

reasonable. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-197 

Effects of Improvements at Public At-Grade Crossings and Adjacent Public Roadways 

Closure Effects. The crossing improvements that are anticipated to have the greatest effect on the 

existing accessibility and connectivity of the transportation network are related to either closures 

of existing public at-grade highway–rail crossings or closures of public roadways located adjacent 

and parallel to the railroad tracks that are required due to engineering of other improvements. 

Closing an existing traffic movement requires a permanent detour of vehicular traffic. This 

permanent detour not only affects the vehicles that are making the detour, but also the traffic 

operations and vehicles along the alternate route to some degree and therefore warrants further 

analysis. 

Fourteen (14) public roadway closures within the different Build Alternatives were identified to 

be analyzed further (see Section 4.15.2.3); these include: 

 Mount Hope Church Road crossing, Stafford County: Build Alternative 2A 

 Colemans Mill Road crossing, Caroline County: Build Alternative 4A 

 College Avenue/Henry Clay Road crossing, Town of Ashland: Build Alternatives 5A, 5B, 

and 5C 

 Railroad Avenue/Center Street between England Street and Maiden Lane, Town of 

Ashland: Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

 Independence Road intersection with West Patrick Henry Road, Hanover County: Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake 

 Bassett Avenue crossing, City of Richmond: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E 

 Terminal Avenue crossing, City of Richmond: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 

6E 

 Thurston Road crossing, Chesterfield County: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 

6E 

 Brinkley Road crossing, Chesterfield County: Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 

6G 

 Old Lane crossing, Chesterfield County: all Richmond Area Build Alternatives 

 Ownby Lane intersection with Hermitage Road, City of Richmond: Build Alternative 6B–

S-Line 

 St James Street crossing, City of Richmond: Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G 

 N 2nd Street/Valley Road crossing, City of Richmond: Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, and 6G 

 Dale Avenue/Trenton Avenue crossing, City of Richmond: Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 

6D, 6F, and 6G 

The closure locations are included on Figures 4.15-1 through 4.15-13. Refer to Section 4.15.2.3 of 

this Draft EIS for details on the closure diversion analysis that was completed for each location. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-198 

Grade Separation and Median Treatment Effects. After review of all highway-rail crossings19, 

the proposed crossing improvements of grade separation and crossing treatment improvements 

(including both median treatment with gates and four-quadrant gates) are expected to have 

minimal effect on existing accessibility and connectivity of the transportation network as part of 

any Build Alternative of the DC2RVA Project. The designs of all proposed grade separations and 

crossing treatment improvements of existing at-grade crossings maintain the existing functional 

characteristics of the crossing roadway, including number and type of roadway lanes. 

Improvements associated with the Build Alternatives sought to address potential adverse effects 

on traffic through implementation of grade separations. 

Effects of Improvements at Private At-Grade Crossings 

After review of all private at-grade highway-rail crossings, DRPT does not anticipate that any of 

the private crossing improvements included as an element of any DC2RVA Build Alternative 

would have an effect on the overall connectivity and accessibility of the transportation network; 

therefore, they do not warrant further detailed traffic operations analysis. 

This outcome is supported by the fact that these crossings are all private and are, by definition, 

exclusive of the public roadway network. Regardless of the private classification, however, the 

crossing improvements at all private at-grade crossing locations were designed to maintain 

existing accessibility and connectivity to the private land parcels. All Build Alternatives as part 

of the DC2RVA Project maintain private property access, with the exception of where full 

property acquisitions are required by the design. 

Effects of Improvements at Grade-Separated Crossings 

After review of all public and private grade-separated highway-rail crossings, DRPT does not 

anticipate any of the proposed modifications to existing grade-separated crossings would have 

an effect on the overall connectivity and accessibility of the transportation network for any Build 

Alternative of the DC2RVA Project. The crossing modifications, if required, at existing gradeseparated crossings include two types: extension of the existing crossing structure or construction 

of a new separate parallel grade-separated crossing structure. All modifications were designed to 

maintain existing functional characteristics of the crossing roadway, including number and type 

of roadway lanes, as part of each Build Alternative; therefore, the proposed actions of the existing 

grade-separated public and private crossings do not warrant further detailed traffic operations 

analysis. 

Relevance of Build Alternatives on Quiet Zones (Public At-Grade Crossings) 

As discussed in Section 3.15.2.2, a Quiet Zone is a section of rail line that contains one or more 

consecutive at-grade public crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded20. 

FHWA defines highway-rail Supplemental and Alternative Safety Measures (SSMs) as 

 

19 The impact to the two new W. Leigh Street at-grade crossings is identified as “no effect” to the connectivity of the 

transportation network because all existing movements are maintained in the design. This is not intended to indicate 

that there would be no effects to vehicles if a new crossing is implemented; refer to Section 14.15.2.2 of this Draft EIS 

for the daily vehicle delay analysis.

20 FRA’s regulatations mandate that a horn be sounded at every public at-grade crossing (i.e., horns are not required 

to be sounded at public crossings that re grade-separated or private crossings). See the Transportation Technical Report 

(Appendix S) for details. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-199 

engineering improvements that compensate for the absence of the train horn safety requirement 

at at-grade crossings. SSMs include the following: 

 Closure of a highway-rail at-grade crossing. Note that closure of an at-grade crossing indicates, 

in this instance, closure of the at-grade condition, which would include grade separation of the 

crossing or permanently closing the crossing to vehicular traffic.

 Four-quadrant gates. 

 Gates with traffic channelization arrangements (e.g., non-mountable curb or mountable 

curb with delineators). 

In accordance with FHWA’s Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (Revised Second Edition 

August 2007), if SSMs are “employed at every highway-rail grade crossing in the quiet zone, they 

automatically qualify the quiet zone (subject to reporting requirements).” The DC2RVA Build 

Alternatives include SSMs at all public existing at-grade crossings; therefore, because the proposed 

actions for existing at-grade highway-rail crossings for the DC2RVA Project fully align with the 

definition of SSMs, the DC2RVA Project would not negatively affect the ability of local public 

authorities to obtain Quiet Zones within their jurisdictions. Because local jurisdictions must initiate 

and manage the process for implementing Quiet Zones, the noise reduction benefits that derive 

from removing the requirement for trains to routinely sound horns are dependent on locality 

actions; the DC2RVA Project would support local jurisdictions should they seek to establish Quiet 

Zones. FRA Office of Safety authorizes quiet zones on a site-specific basis, which are voluntary by 

the operating railroad. 

Furthermore, DRPT does not anticipate that the DC2RVA Project will adversely affect the existing 

Quiet Zone designations because safety improvements that qualify as SSMs are proposed at all 

existing public at-grade crossings, including those with existing Quiet Zone designations that are 

based on the “grandfather” provision in the regulations. Refer to the Transportation Technical 

Report (Appendix S) for full assessment details. 

Effects on Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity 

All existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be maintained (provided in-kind) as part of 

all DC2RVA Build Alternatives and would be designed to current safety standards. This includes 

the existing at-grade pedestrian crossings through the Town of Ashland. The 11 at-grade 

pedestrian crossings in Ashland consist of 3-foot-wide walkways at top of rail, with steps at each 

end. The pedestrian crossings do not have any train warning protection (e.g., no flashing lights 

or gates). In addition, the current at-grade pedestrian crossings do not meet Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Most of the pedestrian crossings also lack a designated 

crosswalk leading across Center Street/Railroad Avenue. DC2RVA Build Alternatives that add a 

track through town would extend existing pedestrian crossings across the new track alignment, 

as necessary. 

Opportunities for additional bicycle and pedestrian accessibility improvements, including 

updates to ADA facilities, would be incorporated during final design in coordination with FRA 

after the Draft EIS. 

4.15.2.3 DC2RVA Crossing Closure Diversion Analysis (Traffic Operations) 

Roadway closures can affect more than the closed roadway itself. Closing an existing traffic 

movement requires vehicles to divert to a different route. This not only affects the vehicles that 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-200 

are diverting, but it also affects traffic operations and vehicles along the diversion route to some 

degree. It is the purpose of this analysis to evaluate the effect of each closure along the diversion 

route. There are fourteen roadways that are anticipated to be closed by the DC2RVA Build 

Alternatives; these are presented in Table 4.15-10. 

Table 4.15-10: Existing and 2025 No Build Data for Closure Diversion Analysis 

Alternative Area1 Alternative 

Closure 

Roadway Name 

Existing/ 

New 

Roadway 

Type 

Crossing 

Milepost 

Daily Volumes2

2015 

2025 

No Build 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A Mount Hope 

Church Road 

Existing Crossing CFP 67.54 214 256 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A Colemans Mill 

Road 

Existing Crossing CFP 29.70 449 537 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295)3

5A, 5B, and 5C College Avenue / 

Henry Clay Road 

Existing Crossing CFP 14.90 1,326 1,586 

5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

and 5D–Ashcake 

Railroad Avenue / 

Center Street 

Existing Adjacent n/a 1,000 1,200 

5C and 

5C–Ashcake 

Independence 

Road 

New Crossing New 949 1,135 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, 6E 

Bassett Avenue Existing Crossing A 1.01 1,399 1,674 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, 6E 

Terminal Avenue Existing Crossing A 3.88 683 817 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, 6E 

Thurston Road Existing Crossing A 10.00 459 549 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

Brinkley Road Existing Crossing S 9.83 1,836 2,196 

6A through G Old Lane Existing Crossing A 10.74 4,896 5,856 

6B–S-Line Ownby Lane Existing Adjacent n/a n/a n/a 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

St James Street Existing Crossing SRN 1.75 1,000 1,196 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

N 2nd Street/ 

Valley Road 

Existing Crossing SRN 1.60 2,142 2,562 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

Dale Avenue/ 

Trenton Avenue 

Existing Crossing S 4.98 0 0 

1

 No closure diversion analysis in Alternative Areas 1 or 3. 

2 The source for all traffic volumes for transportation analyses is the VDOT GIS online database for AADT with Vehicle Classification for 2014 

(accessed January 2016). ADT grown to future years; refer to Section 4.15.1.2 of this Draft EIS. Note that the Dale Avenue/Trenton Avenue

crossing is not open to public traffic in existing conditions. 

3

 Within Ashland, Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake does not include any closures of public roadways.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-201 

The analysis was performed at a level of detail commensurate with size and varied conditions of 

the project’s geographic scale, and with the relatively low traffic volumes on the majority of 

roadways that have the potential for being closed. The closure diversion analysis included two 

evaluations for each closure: 

1. Effects on the roadway traffic along the diversion route(s), including changes in daily 

volumes and associated facility level of service (LOS)21 operations. 

2. Effects on intersection capacity and operations along the diversion route(s). DRPT 

considered three threshold criteria: under capacity, near capacity, and over capacity, 

where intersections may be approaching but not yet exceeding capacity. The intersection 

capacity analyses are intended to generally correspond to LOS as follows: 

a) Under capacity represents LOS A/B conditions 

b) Near capacity represents LOS C/D conditions 

c) Over capacity represents LOS E/F conditions 

For this analysis, DRPT assumed that diverted vehicles would travel beginning at the location of 

the crossing and then utilize the closest adjacent crossing(s) using the shortest roadway path 

(determined based on roadway speeds and distances and engineering judgment). Diversions on 

both sides of the crossing (i.e., east and west of the tracks) were included, as well as upstream 

and downstream adjacent crossings, as applicable. The diversion analysis was conducted 

separately for each roadway closure, except within Ashland. For the Ashland alternatives, the 

analysis was completed for each Build Alternative to evaluate all of the proposed roadway 

closures together on the affected roadway network within the town22. 

Refer to the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) for full details on the process and 

assumptions, as well as detailed results, including maps of roadways and intersection, by closure 

location. 

The results of the roadway and intersection diversion analysis are summarized in two tables: 

 Table 4.15-11 summarizes the analysis as it was conducted: by closure location. 

 Table 4.15-12 compiles the results by Build Alternative. 

As shown by the results in Table 4.15-11, the majority of the roadway closures are anticipated to 

have minimal effect on both roadway and intersection operations. “Minimal effect” is defined as 

the Build condition LOS on all roadway segments and through all intersections as being 

equivalent to the No Build condition. 

There are four closures that DRPT anticipates will have an effect on roadway and/or intersection 

operations, which are shaded for ease of reference in the table and described in further detail 

below. 

 

21 Level of service (LOS) is a measure of traffic operating conditions based generally on a comparison of traffic volumes 

to available capacity. LOS is described in terms of letter grades from A to F; LOS A represents free-flowing traffic 

conditions, while LOS F represents a breakdown in traffic flows, with stop-and-go conditions. Generally, LOS C is 

considered acceptable in rural areas, whereas LOS D is considered acceptable in urban areas. 

22 Within the Town of Ashland, a small traffic assignment model was developed to analyze the closure diversions. 

While the model used the same general process as the other roadway closures, the advantage of using a computerized 

model is to enable the consideration of a greater number of and more varied detour routes. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-202 

Table 4.15-11: Summary of Closure Diversion Analysis Results, by Closure 

Alternative Area1 Alternative Closure Roadway Name 

# Roadway 

Segments / Effect 

on Roadway 

Volumes & LOS 

# Intersections / 

Effect on 

Intersection 

Capacity 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A Mount Hope Church Road 4 / Minimal Effect 4 / Minimal Effect 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A Colemans Mill Road 4 / Minimal Effect 7 / Minimal Effect 

Area 5: Ashland2 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A and 5C Ashland: Close College 

Avenue Crossing 

24 / Decreased LOS 

one segment 

24 / Decreased 

capacity through one 

intersection 

5B–Ashcake and 

5D–Ashcake 

Ashland: Close Center 

Street (South of England / 

Thompson Street to Maiden 

Lane) 

24 / Minimal Effect 24 / Minimal Effect 

5B Ashland: Close College 

Avenue Crossing & Close 

Center Street (South of 

England / Thompson Street 

to Maiden Lane) 

24 / Decreased LOS 

on one segment 

24 / Decreased 

capacity through one 

intersection 

5C and 

5C–Ashcake 

Independence Road 3 / Minimal Effect 3 / Minimal Effect 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, 6E 

Bassett Avenue 8 / Minimal Effect 10 / Minimal Effect 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, 6E 

Terminal Avenue Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, 6E 

Thurston Road 4 / Minimal Effect 6 / Minimal Effect 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

Brinkley Road 4 / Decreased LOS on 

one segment 

6 / Minimal Effect 

6A - G Old Lane 4 / Decreased LOS on 

two segments 

6 / Decreased 

capacity through one 

intersection 

6B–S-Line Ownby Lane Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

St James Street 4 / Minimal Effect 6 / Minimal Effect 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

N 2nd Street/ Valley Road Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

Dale Avenue/ 

Trenton Avenue 

Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

1

 No closure diversion analysis in Alternative Areas 1 or 3. 

2

 Within the Town of Ashland, the closure diversion analysis was performed as a set for the concurrent closures by Build Alternative. Build 

Alternative 5A–Ashcake does not include any public roadway closures. 

Shaded rows represent closures that are anticipated to have an effect on roadway and/or intersection operations. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-203 

Effects of Closure of College Avenue Crossing, Town of Ashland 

This closure is required by the station improvements at the existing station location (i.e., the 

extension of the platform across College Avenue/Henry Clay Road) in Build Alternatives 5A and 

5C. Diverted vehicles could use a variety of alternate routes through the grid street network in 

the Town of Ashland. 

 Roadway Operations. Thompson Street, between N James Street and N Center Street, is 

projected to drop from operating at LOS D (with 14,600 daily vehicles) in 2025 No Build 

to LOS E (with 15,400 daily vehicles) 2025 Build. 

 Intersection Operations. Thompson/England Street at Center Street, which is the 

primary intersection in the center of the Town of Ashland, is projected to operate near 

capacity (generally equivalent to LOS C/D) during Build conditions, compared to under 

capacity (generally equivalent to LOS A/B) during 2025 No Build conditions. 

Effects of Closure of College Avenue Crossing and Closure of Center Street 

(South of England/Thompson Street to Maiden Lane), Town of Ashland 

These concurrent closures are required due to conflicts with the station platform 

improvements (closure of College Avenue crossing) and conflicts with the addition of the 

third track (closure of Railroad Avenue/Center Street (on the east side of the tracks, between 

England/Thompson Street and Maiden Lane) that are part of Build Alternative 5B. Diverted 

vehicles could use a variety of alternate routes through the grid street network in the Town 

of Ashland.

Roadway Operations. Thompson Street, between N James Street and N Center Street, is projected 

to drop from operating at LOS D (with 14,600 daily vehicles) in 2025 No Build to LOS E (with 

15,300 daily vehicles) in 2025 Build. 

 Intersection Operations. Thompson/England Street at Center Street, which is the 

primary intersection in the center of the Town of Ashland, is projected to operate near 

capacity (generally equivalent to LOS C/D) during Build conditions, compared to under 

capacity (generally equivalent to LOS A/B) during 2025 No Build conditions. 

Effects of Closure of Brinkley Road, Chesterfield County 

The Kingsland Road crossing is located just over approximately 1⁄2 mile north of the Brinkley 

Road crossing. For 2025 Build conditions as part of Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G, 

diverted vehicles would access this crossing by using Dorsey Road to the west of the rail corridor 

and Chester Road to the east. 

 Roadway Operations. Kingsland Road, between Dorsey Road and Chester Road is 

projected to drop from operating at LOS A (with 2,100 daily vehicles) in the 2025 No Build 

conditions to LOS B (with 4,200 daily vehicles) in the 2025 Build conditions. 

 Intersection Operations. Minimal effect. 

Effects of Closure of Old Lane, Chesterfield County 

The Centralia Road crossing, which is proposed to be grade-separated as a part of the Richmond-toRaleigh (R2R) project, is located approximately 1⁄2 mile south of the Old Lane crossing. For 2025 Build 

conditions in all Richmond Build Alternatives (6A through 6G), diverted vehicles would access this 

crossing by using Hopkins Road to the west of the rail corridor and Chester Road to the east. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-204 

 Roadway Operations. The following two roadway segments are affected by the closure: 

- Centralia Road, between Hopkins Road and Chester Road, is projected to drop from 

operating at LOS B (with 10,500 daily vehicles) in the 2025 No Build conditions to LOS 

E (with 16,300 daily vehicles) in the 2025 Build conditions. Centralia Road near this 

segment would be redesigned and reconstructed (including the grade separation) to 

accommodate these future volumes. 

- Hopkins Road, between Old Lane and Centralia Road, is projected to drop from 

operating at LOS B (with 4,100 daily vehicles) in the 2025 No Build conditions to LOS 

C (with 8,000 daily vehicles) in the 2025 Build conditions. 

 Intersection Operations. Centralia Road at Chester Road is projected to operate near 

capacity (generally equivalent to LOS C/D) during Build conditions, compared to under 

capacity (generally equivalent to LOS A/B) during 2025 No Build conditions. 

The results of the crossing diversion analyses compiled by Build Alternative are presented in 

Table 4.15-12. 

4.15.2.4 DC2RVA Crossing Improvement Effects on Total Daily Vehicle Delay 

The total vehicle delay per day is the amount of time that vehicles spend queuing at an at-grade 

crossing over the course of a day (24 hours) based on the number of trains that are expected to 

pass through the crossing. The purpose of the daily delay calculations as part of the DC2RVA 

transportation analysis is to quantify the delay experienced by vehicles due to the number and 

type of trains traveling through the public at-grade highway-rail crossings for existing, No Build, 

and Build conditions. This daily vehicle delay calculation applies only to the at-grade public 

crossings themselves in the DC2RVA corridor23. Any combination of more trains, slower trains, 

and more motor vehicles would result in increases in resulting daily vehicle delay. Refer to the 

Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) for full details on the daily delay calculation and 

source data, as well as the results summarized below. 

At-Grade Crossing at Mine Road 

 

23 While private vehicles may experience additional delay due to either train service improvements or crossing 

improvements as part of the DC2RVA Project, it is not quantified as part of this analysis. 

24 The increase of 1 hour of total daily delay for Build Alternative 3A is due to a combination of maintaining existing 

crossing conditions and increases in train frequency. 
ENVIRONMENTAL 

Table 4.15-12: Summary of Closure Diversion Analysis Results, by Build Alternative 

Alternative Area1 Alternative 

Closure Diversion Roadway(s) 

Analyzed 

Effects on Roadway Traffic 

Volumes and Associated LOS Effects o

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A Mount Hope Church Road Minimal Effect Minimal EffArea 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A Colemans Mill Road Minimal Effect Minimal Eff

Area 5: Ashland(Doswell to I-295) 5A College Avenue/Henry Clay Road Thompson Street: 14,600 vehicles / LOS D, No Build 

15,400 vehicles / LOS E, Build All other locations minimal effect. 

England/Th

Street: Under CapaNear CapacAll other lo

5A–Ashcake No Closures for this Build Alternative n/a n/a

5B College Avenue / Henry Clay Road; 

Railroad Avenue / Center Street 

Thompson Street: 14,600 vehicles / LOS D, No Build 15,300 vehicles / LOS E, Build All other locations minimal effect. 

England/Th

Street: Under CapaNear CapacAll other lo

5B–Ashcake Same as 5D–Ashcake Same as 5D–Ashcake Same as 5D

5C College Avenue / Henry Clay Road; 

Independence Road 

Thompson Street: 

14,600 vehicles / LOS D, No Build 15,400 vehicles / LOS E, Build All other locations minimal effect. 

England/Th

Street: Under CapaNear CapacAll other lo

5C–Ashcake Independence Road Minimal Effect Minimal Eff

5D–Ashcake Railroad Avenue / Center Street Minimal Effect Minimal Eff

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-206 

Table 4.15-12: Summary of Closure Diversion Analysis Results, by Build Alternative 

Alternative Area1 Alternative 

Closure Diversion Roadway(s) 

Analyzed 

Effects on Roadway Traffic 

Volumes and Associated LOS Effects o

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 6A Bassett Avenue; Terminal Avenue; Thurston Road; Old Lane Centralia Road: 10,500 vehicles / LOS B, No Build 

16,300 vehicles / LOS E, Build Hopkins Road: 4,100 vehicles / LOS B, No Build 8,000 vehicles / LOS C, Build All other locations minimal effect. 

Centralia R

Under CapaNear CapacAll other lo

6B–A-Line Same as 6A Same as 6A Same as 6A

6B–S-Line St James Street; 

N 2nd Street/Valley Road; 

Dale Avenue/Trenton Avenue; Brinkley Road; Old Lane 

Same as 6AKingsland Road:

2,100 vehicles / LOS A, No Build 4,200 vehicles / LOS B, Build All other locations minimal effect. 

Same as 6A

6C Same as 6A Same as 6A Same as 6A

6D Same as 6B–S-Line Same as 6B

–S-Line Same as 6B

6E Same as 6A Same as 6A Same as 6A 

6F Same as 6B–S-Line Same as 6B

–S-Line Same as 6B

6G Same as 6B–S-Line Same as 6B

–S-Line Same as 6B

1 No closure diversion analysis locations in Alternative Areas 1 or 3. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-207 

Effects of Types of Crossing Treatments on Daily Vehicle Delay 

Different crossing treatments that are proposed as part of the DC2RVA Build Alternatives would 

have different effects on the total daily delay. The type of crossing improvement that can have 

the largest effect on the daily delay calculation is crossing elimination, as it fully removes the 

delay condition of vehicles queueing at an at-grade crossing. Crossing elimination is defined as 

either grade-separation or crossing closure: 

 Grade separation eliminates the vehicle delay by physically separating the train traffic from 

the roadway vehicles, though all vehicles use the crossing in the same travel patterns as the 

existing condition. This would affect the daily delay calculation by “zeroing out” the daily 

delay at the grade-separated crossing in the Build condition. For the DC2RVA Project, the 

following proposed crossing closure locations would divert vehicular traffic to adjacent 

crossing(s) that are grade-separated, as previously presented in Section 4.15.2.3, and 

therefore do not require diverted vehicles to be accounted for in the analysis of delay. 

- Mount Hope Church Road, Build Alternative 2A, Stafford County 

- Colemans Mill Road, Build Alternative 4A, Caroline County 

- Independence Road, Build Alternative 5C, Hanover County 

- Old Lane, all Richmond Build Alternatives, Chesterfield County 

- St James Street, Build Alternative 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G, Richmond 

- Terminal Avenue, Build Alternative 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E, Richmond 

- N 2nd Street/Valley Road, Build Alternative 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G, Richmond 

- Dale Avenue/Trenton Avenue is not considered an existing public crossing and 

therefore has no effect on the delay analyses. 

 Crossing closure eliminates the vehicle delay by physically removing the ability of 

roadway vehicles to cross the rail corridor at an existing location; these vehicles would be 

accommodated via a permanent detour of vehicular traffic to adjacent crossing(s) as 

presented in Section 4.15.2.3. This would affect the daily delay in two ways in the Build 

conditions: (1) it would “zero out” the daily delay at the location of the crossing closure, 

and (2) it would increase the delay at any adjacent at-grade crossing(s) that the detoured 

vehicles use. If the adjacent crossing used by detoured vehicles is a grade-separated 

crossing(s), there is no effect on the grade-separated crossing because, as noted above, 

there is no interaction between motor vehicles and rail traffic. Otherwise, proposed 

crossing closures would require detouring vehicles to adjacent at-grade crossing(s), and 

therefore, would require inclusion of diverted vehicles on those adjacent crossing(s) as 

part of the Build condition. For the total daily delay analyses, vehicles were diverted per 

the closure diversion analysis methodology as presented in Section 4.15.2.3 above.

Table 4.15-13 presents the summary of the total daily delay results for the above conditions. The 

results indicate the following overall corridor-wide results. 

Effect of the DC2RVA Project on the 40-hour FHWA Daily Delay Threshold 

Daily vehicle delay is one of FHWA’s 11 criteria for which grade separation of at-grade crossings 

should be considered; the criteria threshold set by FHWA is 40 total vehicle hours of delay per 

day, which is the cumulative time all vehicles are delayed at a crossing per day. 

 The 40-hour FHWA threshold for total daily delay at an individual at-grade crossing is 

not met or exceeded under existing or No Build conditions. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-208 

 The 40-hour FHWA threshold for total daily delay at an individual at-grade crossing is not 

met or exceeded by the crossing conditions for any Build Alternative as part of the DC2RVA 

Project with the exception of one crossing. The England Street/Thompson Street crossing 

exceeds the 40-hour FHWA threshold in two of the build alternatives that pass through the 

Town of Ashland (Build Alternatives 5A and 5B with 41.85 total daily hours). The total daily 

delay at this crossing is 37.37 hours under No Build conditions. 

Effect of the DC2RVA Project on Total Daily Vehicle Delay 

The results shown in Table 4.15-13 are the sum total of all crossings within each Build Alternative. 

Negative values in the “% change” column represent decreases in delay in the Build condition. 

 DRPT anticipates that the DC2RVA Project will reduce vehicle delay for each Build 

Alternative with the exception of Build Alternative 3A, which maintains existing crossing 

conditions24. This reduction in delay indicates that the overall proposed grade separations 

and operating conditions that reduce delay (i.e., improved train speeds) outweigh the 

proposed changes that would increase delay (i.e., number of daily vehicles and trains, length 

of train). While vehicles at crossing closures will divert to adjacent crossings, the majority of 

diverted vehicles would utilize adjacent grade-separated crossings (thus removing the daily 

delay of those vehicles) and/or are relatively not high volumes of vehicles that are detoured. 

 Corridor-wide, the Build Alternatives with the greatest reductions in total vehicle delay 

hours are represented by the areas with the most at-grade crossing eliminations (i.e., grade 

separation or crossing closure) or those with service changes (i.e., the bypass alignments 

that reduce the daily number of trains through existing at-grade crossings or service line 

changes on the A- and S-Lines in Richmond). 

 Within Build Alternative 2A, there is one crossing elimination at Mount Hope Church 

Road (of four total at-grade crossings), which represents a 1 percent reduction in daily 

delay compared to No Build. 

 Within Fredericksburg, the only Build Alternative that includes a crossing elimination is 

3B, which includes one grade separation at Landsdowne Road (of four total at-grade 

crossings) and has the fewest total number of at-grade crossings. 3B represents a 60 

percent reduction in daily delay compared to No Build. 

 Within Build Alternative 4A, there is one crossing elimination at Colemans Mill Road (of 

seven total at-grade crossings), which represents a 6 percent reduction in daily delay 

compared to No Build. 

 Within Ashland, the Build Alternatives with the greatest reductions in daily delay occur 

for the bypass alignments (5C and 5C–Ashcake), which represent approximately 90 

percent reductions in daily delay through the existing at-grade crossings in town. The 

bypass alignments remove freight and long-distance passenger trains from traveling 

through the at-grade crossings in the town. For all other Build Alternatives, which vary 

in the total number and location of crossing elimination, there is a reduction of 

approximately 25 percent in daily delay compared to No Build. 

 The A-Line Build Alternatives in Richmond include seven crossing eliminations (out of 

eleven total at-grade crossings), which represents a 70 percent reduction in daily delay 

 

24 The increase of 1 hour of total daily delay for Build Alternative 3A is due to a combination of maintaining existing 

crossing conditions and increases in train frequency. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-209 

compared to No Build. The exception is 6C, which includes two new at-grade crossings at 

the Broad Street Station and therefore would experience higher total delay. 

 The S-Line Build Alternatives in Richmond include seven crossing eliminations (of a total 

of seventeen at-grade crossings), which represents a 60 percent reduction in daily delay 

compared to No Build. The exception is 6B–S-Line, which includes an additional crossing 

elimination in proximity to the Boulevard Station. By eliminating the most at-grade 

crossings in the Build condition, it is projected to experience the greatest decreases in delay. 

 For crossings that remain at-grade and experience increases in delay in the Build 

condition, the change in total daily delay is less than 8 percent for most crossings. Less 

than ten individual crossings that are located within Fredericksburg, Ashland, and 

Richmond will experience higher total daily delay. Refer to the Transportation Technical 

Report (Appendix S) for these details. 

Total Daily Delay due to Types of Trains 

Table 4.15-13 also shows the Intercity Passenger, VRE Passenger, and Freight percentage of total 

daily delay. 

 The delay due to intercity passenger trains increases compared to No Build conditions for 

the majority of the corridor and continues to represent a relatively small fraction of the 

total daily vehicle delay experienced at at-grade crossings in 2025 Build conditions. 

 The majority of the total delay experienced throughout all alternative areas would 

continue to be from freight trains, which represents almost 90 percent of the total delay 

corridor-wide in 202525. 

4.16 UTILITIES 

Utility impacts for the Build Alternatives vary widely throughout the length of the Project. Table 

4.16-1 summarizes the estimated utility impacts and costs for the Build Alternatives. The No Build 

Alternative would not require any utility relocations. 

4.17 SAFETY AND SECURITY 

FRA’s Track Safety Standards (49 CFR 213) are based on classifications of track that determine 

maximum operating speed limits, inspection frequencies, and standards of maintenance, among 

other issues. Higher track classes require more-stringent maintenance standards to support higher 

allowable maximum operating speed. Between Fredericksburg and Staples Mill Station in Richmond, 

the proposed maximum speed is 90 mph, or FRA Class 5. Outside of this area, the proposed 

maximum speed is 79 mph, or FRA Class 4. The proposed improvements described in Chapter 2 

would bring rail infrastructure in the selected corridor into compliance with the appropriate FRA 

standards. FRA will require the preparation of a System Safety Plan upon the completion of the EIS 

and prior to authorization to implement the infrastructure and service improvements proposed 

under the DC2RVA Project. Refer to the Basis of Design Technical Report (Appendix B).

 

25 The exception to this is Build Alternative 5C and 5C-Ashcake, which shift all freight trains onto the bypass. 

Accordingly, the existing at-grade intersections through the Town of Ashland would therefore have reduced daily 

delay due to freight trains for the bypass alternatives.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-210 

Table 4.15-13: Summary of Total Daily Delay1 Results, 2025 Build Conditions, By Build Alternative 

Alternative 

Area2 Alternative 

Crossings that 

Exceed FWHA 

40-hour Daily 

Delay Threshold 

Total Daily Vehicle Delay Results 

No Build 

(Hours) 

At-Grade 

Crossings 

Removed3 as 

part of project 

Build 

(Hours) 

Intercity 

Percent 

of Total 

Delay 

VRE 

Percent 

of Total 

Delay 

Freigh

Percen

of Tot

Delay 

No 

Build Build 

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 0 0 23.28 1 23.01 13% 5% 82% 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A 0 0 16.61 0 17.61 13% 5% 81% 

3B 0 0 16.61 1 6.59 13% 5% 82% 

3C 0 0 36.37 0 32.79 9% 0% 91% 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A 0 0 3.58 1 3.35 13% 0% 87% 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

5A 0 1 73.94 3 56.28 11% 0% 89% 

5A–Ashcake 0 0 73.94 2 56.33 11% 0% 89% 

5B 0 1 73.94 3 55.01 11% 0% 89% 

5B

–Ashcake and 

5D–Ashcake 0 0 73.94 2 55.06 11% 0% 89% 

5C 0 0 73.94 1 9.76 42% 0% 58% 

5C

–Ashcake 0 0 73.94 0 9.77 42% 0% 58% 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

6A, 6B

–A-Line, 

and 6E 0 0 78.70 7 26.48 12% 0% 88% 

6B

–S-Line 0 0 168.36 9 40.37 11% 0% 89% 

6C4 0 0 104.90 7 64.95 24% 0% 76% 

6D and 6F 0 0 168.36 8 68.55 10% 0% 90% 

6G 0 0 168.36 8 67.20 8% 0% 92% 

1 Delay represents the Total Daily Vehicle Delay for all train types. It is the cumulative delay for all at-grade crossings. 2 Note that there are no public at-grade crossings located within Alternative Area 1 (Arlington). 3 Removal of the At-Grade Highway-Rail Crossing Condition includes the proposed improvements of Grade Separation and Crossing Closure. 4 Build Alternative 6C includes the delay associated with the two new at-grade crossings in all calculations excluding the No Build condition. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-211 

Table 4.16-1: Estimated Utility Relocations and Costs 

Alternative 

Area Alternative 

Relocations (in feet, except Major Facility) 

Cost 

Fiber Water $2016 

Sanitary 

Sewer 

Electric 

Dist. 

Electric 

Trans. Gas 

Major 

Facility 

Area 1: 

Arlington (Long 

Bridge 

Approach) 

1A – – – – – – – $0 

1B – – – 400 – – – $118,800 

1C – – – 400 – – – $118,800 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia (Long 

Bridge to 

Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 3,000 – – 2,000 – 45,000 – $34,485,000 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur 

to Crossroads)

3A 1,500 – – – – 3,500 – $2,695,500 

3B 1,500 – – – – 3,500 – $2,695,500 

3C 1,500 – – – – 4,000 – $3,070,500 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

4A 153,000 1,160 – 1,875 – 7,275 – $13,506,885 

Area 5: 

Ashland (Doswell 

to I-295)

5A 61,776 – – 400 – 600 – $3,472,272 

5A–Ashcake 61,776 – – 400 – 600 – $3,472,272 

5B 90,288 5,000 600 2,825 – 2,800 – $8,724,561 

5B–Ashcake 90,288 5,000 600 2,825 – 2,800 – $8,724,561 

5C 30,096 1,667 200 942 – 933 – $2,908,123 

5C–Ashcake 30,096 1,667 200 942 – 933 – $2,908,123 

5D–Ashcake 90,288 5,000 600 2,825 – 2,800 – $8,724,561 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

6A 24,345 2,170 1,175 9,510 3,700 6,915 1 $28,935,430 

6B–A-Line 104,855 2,575 1,220 20,920 5,200 7,200 1 $43,945,400 

6B–S-Line 196,175 1,658 1,215 23,020 14,700 7,325 2 $96,463,578 

6C 104,900 2,665 1,220 20,920 5,700 7,200 1 $46,471,005 

6D 196,175 1,658 1,215 23,020 14,700 7,325 2 $96,463,578 

6E 91,630 2,350 1,220 11,040 3,700 7,140 2 $33,035,740 

6F 196,175 1,658 1,215 23,020 14,700 7,325 2 $96,463,578 

6G 196,175 1,658 1,215 23,705 14,700 7,475 2 $96,779,523 

Note: Cost estimates do not include engineering costs or contingency. Major utility facility relocations are provided by number, not feet. 

Each at-grade highway-rail crossing was analyzed to determine which safety mechanisms or 

treatments would be proposed as part of the Build Alternatives. These treatments include grade 

separation, closure/consolidation, four-quadrant gates, median treatment, other treatment, or no 

action. All roadways that would be retained across the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 

3C) and the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would be grade-separated. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-212 

There would be two new at-grade crossings under the single-station alternative in Richmond at 

Broad Street (Build Alternative 6C). The Project would improve safety of the private at-grade 

crossings with either locking gates or signalized four-quadrant gates and would improve safety 

at the pedestrian at-grade crossings. 

Safety of the existing public at-grade crossings in the DC2RVA corridor would be improved as 

part of the Build Alternatives (Appendix S, Transportation Technical Report).

4.18 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Most of the rail lines in the United States, including the DC2RVA corridor, are used for 

transportation of various freight, including hazardous materials. All Class I railroads are required 

to maintain a safety plan for transporting such materials. FRA and The United States Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) regulate the transportation of materials on railroads. 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of DHS determines the routes for shipment of 

certain hazardous materials. For security reasons, TSA does not share this information outside 

specific agencies and freight rail carriers; however, freight rail carriers regularly communicate 

with emergency management agencies and DHS about materials of concern. 

The Build Alternatives would add nine additional round trips of intercity passenger trains on the 

DC2RVA corridor. The Project would not add any hazardous materials trains on the DC2RVA 

corridor. The Build Alternatives are designed in accordance with FRA regulations, industry 

standards, and CSXT requirements. DRPT expects that the proposed upgrades to facilities and 

added rail capacity associated with the Build Alternatives will increase safety of all train traffic 

through the DC2RVA corridor by decreasing congestion, maintaining the rail line to current 

standards in locations where work is being conducted and replacing older infrastructure. The 

modern infrastructure and new technologies that would be applied would provide a greater level 

of safety for all rail traffic, including transportation of hazardous materials. 

4.19 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

Construction impacts associated with a transportation project are those impacts that are 

temporary or short term and that occur only during construction. They can involve temporary 

changes in land use and access, air quality, noise levels, water quality, and wildlife habitat. The 

following provides an overview of the types and extent of potential construction impacts that 

may occur if a Build Alternative is advanced. BMPs and other measures that can be used as 

appropriate to mitigate any temporary construction impacts are also presented. Construction 

impacts would be similar amongst the different Build Alternatives in each alternative area, with 

the exception of Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg) and Alternative Area 5 (Ashland). In these 

areas, more construction would occur with the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and 

the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) than the Build Alternatives that go 

through town (Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake). 

However, the Build Alternatives that go through town and add an additional track (Build 

Alternatives 3B, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) would require construction through a built 

up urban environment where space is more confined and where construction activities are more 

likely to impact activities of area residents. Refer to the Constructability Technical Report (Appendix 

L) for addition information regarding the construction of each Build Alternative. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-213 

4.19.1 Impacts 

4.19.1.1 Rail 

Track closures and shifts can have major effects on rail operations. New stations and station 

alterations can also have effects on transit users. Construction of the additional track, 

infrastructure additions and modification to control points, station infrastructure with additional 

platforms, and speed increases requires a phased construction approach. 

4.19.1.2 Land Use and Access 

Construction activities for all Build Alternatives could result in temporary and localized detours, 

modifications to access, and increases in truck traffic. Access to businesses and homes could be 

temporarily disrupted due to temporary detours that are necessary to allow ample space for 

equipment staging and construction. 

4.19.1.3 Air Quality 

Demolition and construction activities can result in short-term increases in fugitive dust and 

equipment-related particulate emissions in and around the study area. The potential air quality 

effects would be short term, occurring only while demolition and construction work is in progress 

and local conditions are appropriate. The potential for fugitive dust emissions typically is 

associated with building demolition, ground clearing, site preparation, grading, stockpiling of 

materials, onsite movement of equipment, and transportation of materials. The potential is 

greatest during dry periods, periods of intense construction activity, and during high wind 

conditions. 

GHG emissions would also be generated during construction; however, these emissions are likely 

to be relatively minor given the nature and size of the Project and the limited duration of 

construction activities. 

4.19.1.4 Noise 

Noise levels would not be substantially altered by construction, which includes noise generated 

by heavy equipment during construction activities. The potential for noise impacts during 

construction is correlated to the proximity of sensitive noise receptors to the proposed 

construction activity. The potential for noise impacts during construction typically increases in 

urban and suburban areas because of the higher population densities found in those areas; 

however, noise in urban areas might be less noticeable than in rural areas because ambient noise 

levels are higher in urban areas. Construction noise impacts are temporary and, typically, 

progress linearly along transportation corridor construction projects. As construction approaches 

an area, noise impacts to receptors in that area would begin to increase over a period of time, 

reach a peak, and then dissipate as construction moves past the area. Section 4.7.1.4 provides 

additional information regarding construction noise. 

4.19.1.5 Water Resources 

Construction could potentially result in short-term effects such as increased sedimentation, 

increase in turbidity from in-stream work, and possible spills, or non-point source pollutants 

entering groundwater or surface water from stormwater runoff. Construction activities that could 

affect stormwater runoff include excavation to widen ‘cut’ sections and to remove unsuitable 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-214 

(organic) material from ‘fill’ sections; filling and placing ballasts to support new track; relocating 

access roads; relocating or creating new trackside swales; and any substructure work required for 

bridge or culvert installation, or station improvements. Construction staging areas and haul 

roads, if needed, could also disturb the ground, potentially causing erosion and sedimentation. 

Additionally, culvert installation may require pump-around methods, resulting in a temporary 

cessation of flow through stream sections. 

4.19.1.6 Wildlife and Habitat 

Human presence during construction and the associated construction noise, such as from passing 

equipment, piling emplacement, and blasting of bedrock, may temporarily displace some species 

of wildlife. The noises associated with construction may also mask territorial vocalizations of 

birds, interfering temporarily with breeding. Amphibians, which breed more commonly at dusk 

or night, are less likely to be affected. Construction in forested areas may result in mortality of 

amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals within the work zone and the loss of nesting birds if 

construction is initiated during nesting season. The clearing of terrestrial and aquatic vegetated 

cover within the construction footprint would temporarily displace certain habitat areas, and the 

mechanical removal of cover would cause animal migration away from the disturbance, resulting 

in a temporary decrease in available habitat and increased competition for remaining habitat. 

Water quality and therefore aquatic species may be affected temporarily by runoff from 

construction areas and permanently through runoff from increased impervious surfaces. 

Anadromous fish movements could be interrupted during construction. Opportunistic or 

invasive plant species may have a competitive advantage in colonizing disturbed areas during 

early construction activities. Many of these effects can be offset through application of BMPs. 

4.19.2 Mitigation 

4.19.2.1 Rail 

During construction, the goal will be to maintain two main tracks in operation wherever possible; 

however, there will be some track outages and service disruptions during construction. DRPT 

will prepare a Service Development Plan (SDP) for the DC2RVA Project. The SDP will define the 

phased implementation of improvements relative to the incremental expansion of service. 

Preliminary engineering and final design plans will include a construction staging plan to 

minimize track outages during construction. Station improvements for platform additions and 

pedestrian access will be constructed early to support the new track when placed in operation. 

4.19.2.2 Land Use and Access 

Temporary disruptions to driving patterns and access are often unavoidable but would be 

minimized to the extent possible by carefully planning for maintenance of traffic during the 

construction process. The SDP will define the phased implementation of improvements relative 

to the incremental expansion of service. Preliminary engineering and final design plans will 

include a construction staging plan to minimize roadway outages during construction. Safety 

concerns due to the presence of heavy construction equipment during Project construction will 

be mitigated using appropriate signage and fencing to separate pedestrians and vehicles from 

construction areas and equipment. All land use temporarily affected by construction activities 

would be returned to its original use after construction is complete. All temporary access for 

construction vehicles would be removed and returned to its original land use. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-215 

4.19.2.3 Air Quality 

DRPT will identify the appropriate BMPs to minimize air quality effects during construction. The 

VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications include provisions on fugitive dust control. Under these 

provisions, dust and airborne dirt generated by construction activities will be controlled through 

dust control procedures or a specific dust control plan, when warranted. The contractor and 

DRPT will meet to review the nature and extent of dust-generating activities and will 

cooperatively develop specific types of control techniques appropriate to the specific situation. 

Techniques that may warrant consideration include measures such as minimizing track-out of 

soil onto nearby publicly traveled roads, reducing speed on unpaved roads, covering haul 

vehicles, and applying chemical dust suppressants or water to exposed surfaces, particularly 

those on which construction vehicles travel. With the application of appropriate measures to limit 

dust emissions during construction, this Project will not cause any significant, short-term 

particulate matter air quality impacts. 

4.19.2.4 Noise 

Practices to minimize the effects of construction noise would be in accordance with Section 

107.14(c)(3) of VDOT’s Road and Bridge Specifications. 

While construction noise is unavoidable in most cases, steps can be taken to minimize the impact, 

such as the following: 

 Keep all equipment well maintained, tuned, and properly lubricated to minimize atsource noise production; 

 Use sound attenuation devices on exhaust ports; 

 Substitute the use of flag persons to control construction vehicle movements, instead of 

using audible back-up alarms for vehicles; 

 Minimize unnecessary idling of heavy equipment and machinery, especially diesel 

engines and generators, when not actively in use; and 

 Prohibit construction during sensitive nighttime, early evening, and early morning hours. 

DRPT will evaluate construction noise mitigation measures in more detail when an analysis of 

construction noise based on an actual construction plan can be completed and will ensure that all 

appropriate mitigation measures are employed by including these measures in the contractors’ 

contracts. 

4.19.2.5 Water Resources 

All temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and water resources associated with 

construction activities are regulated by USACE and Virginia DEQ through Sections 404 and 401 

of the CWA, as well as by the Virginia Water Protection Program. DRPT will be responsible for 

ensuring that all Section 404 and 401 permit requirements are met by the Project contractors. 

Stormwater discharges to jurisdictional wetlands and waterways, such as discharges from 

construction sites, are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Stormwater program. An NPDES Construction permit would be required for any 

construction site that disturbs more than 1 acre (including sites that are smaller than 1 acre but 

are included as part of a larger project or development). Through issuance of an NPDES 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-216 

Stormwater permit, the regulating agency would ensure that enough erosion and sediment 

control measures are specified for the activity and that impacts are further reduced by using 

construction BMPs. 

Erosion and sedimentation control plans for highway and rail improvements, including staging 

areas, would be required for work that would include ground disturbance, and they would describe 

the measures to be employed as erosion control, sedimentation control, temporary stormwater 

management measures, and dust control. Erosion control plans would also address in-water work 

at stream crossing locations. These plans must be approved before site construction could proceed 

and would be developed in accordance with regulations set forth by VDCR. Implementation of the 

Project-specific plan would be expected to minimize impacts of erosion and sedimentation during 

construction. Erosion and sediment control measures would be implemented throughout the 

construction period to minimize water quality impacts from increased levels of sedimentation and 

turbidity. Control measures may include berms, dikes, sediment basins, fiber mats, straw silt 

barriers, netting, mulch, temporary and permanent seeding, and other methods. Construction 

impacts to in-stream aquatic habitats would be minimized to the extent practicable by avoiding 

stream relocations and by crossing streams at right angles where possible. To the extent possible, 

construction equipment would be restricted from fording and otherwise disrupting in-stream 

habitats. Staging areas for heavy equipment, material storage, and short-term field offices would 

be chosen carefully and situated away from sensitive areas. 

4.19.2.6 Wildlife and Habitat 

DRPT anticipates that construction would be monitored to adhere to a strict schedule with 

possible time of year restrictions to avoid disrupting the critical life cycles of both aquatic and 

terrestrial wildlife, in particular, threatened and endangered species. The spread of invasive plant 

species would be minimized during construction through cleaning of equipment and machinery 

between sites to reduce transport of undesirable plant species and prompt revegetation of 

disturbed areas. Temporary and permanent revegetation establishment, in accordance with 

VDOT’s Road and Bridge Specifications, would minimize the extent and duration of undesirable 

plant growth and reduce sediment runoff. Work in streams and wetlands would also be 

minimized to the extent practicable, and necessary in-stream work would be done in the dry or 

with the use of sediment curtains and other measures to minimize impacts to aquatic species. 

Aquatic and terrestrial habitat would be restored in temporary construction areas as the native 

vegetation reestablishes over time. 

4.20 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

4.20.1 Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects are those that are caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but still are reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects 

and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or 

growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems 

(40 CFR 1508.8(a)). The analysis of indirect effects followed a seven-step process described below 

based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 466, Desk Reference 

for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects (TRB, 2002). This process is 

consistent with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and FHWA regulations for 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-217 

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and with applicable CEQ and 

FHWA guidance. 

NCHRP Report 466 states that indirect effects can occur in three broad categories: 

1. Encroachment-alteration impacts – Alteration of the behavior and functioning of the 

affected environment caused by project encroachment (physical, biological, 

socioeconomic) on the environment 

2. Induced growth impacts – Project-influenced development effects (land use) 

3. Impacts related to induced growth – effects related to Project-influenced development 

effects (impacts of changed land uses on the human and natural environment) 

4.20.1.1 Step 1: Scoping 

Scoping entails collaboration with the public, agencies, and other stakeholders to identify the 

significant issues that should be studied in the indirect effects analysis. The study team 

coordinated extensively with local, state, and federal agencies and jurisdictions and the public 

throughout the study. Early outreach included an agency scoping meeting, four public scoping 

meetings, e-mail distributions, press releases, website announcements, and letters to elected 

officials. Additional details on the coordination can be found in Chapter 6. 

Commenters identified several resources of concern, including: 

 Socioeconomics (land use, parks and recreational areas, public lands, minority and lowincome populations, and right-of-way and displacements); 

 Natural resources (surface waters and wetlands, floodplains, biological resources, and air 

quality); 

 Historic properties (building sites, districts, and objects listed in or eligible for listing in 

the NRHP). 

4.20.1.2 Step 2: Identify Study Area Direction and Goals 

As described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, and Chapter 2, Alternatives, the proposed 

improvements would be largely limited to the existing rail corridor, with the exception of several 

local realignment options at the City of Fredericksburg and the Town of Ashland. Accordingly, 

the general study areas for the Project are centered on the existing rail facilities, as illustrated in 

Figure 1.2-1 in Chapter 1. The preceding sections of this chapter describe the direct environmental 

impacts of the proposed improvements along these corridors. 

Indirect effects can occur in areas beyond the direct footprint of the constructed improvements. 

Moreover, the areas within which indirect effects may materialize vary by resource type. 

Therefore, each resource-specific study area includes additional lands that contain resources that 

are in some way connected to the area of direct effects of the Project. The following study areas 

have been defined for the indirect and cumulative effects analyses. 

Socioeconomics 

The study area for indirect and cumulative effects on socioeconomic resources encompasses an area 

defined by Census tracts that lie directly within or partially within the direct impacts area. Topics 

included under socioeconomics include land use, demographics, environmental justice, parks and 

recreational resources, and public lands. The Project corridor traverses parts of 153 census tracts in 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-218 

Arlington County (2), the City of Alexandria (10), Fairfax County (13), Prince William County (11), 

Stafford County (10), the City of Fredericksburg (3), Spotsylvania County (4), Caroline County (6), 

Hanover County (12), Henrico County (19), the City of Richmond (52), and Chesterfield County 

(11). The data associated with these tracts are presented in Table 3.12-2 and Figure 3.12-1 in Chapter 

3. While the census tracts encompass areas where indirect socioeconomic effects may occur, the 

locations where induced growth might occur is focused near the stations where access to improved 

intercity passenger rail services would be provided. Inducement of growth requires access to the 

rail services at the station locations in the same manner as highway interchanges provide access to 

the interstate highway system. Major passenger transport stations for intercity passenger rail work 

best in existing regional centers (FRA, 2011). Accordingly, station locations proposed for one or 

more alternatives include the following, which are all in urban or suburban areas: 

 Alexandria Union Station 

 Woodbridge Station 

 Quantico Station 

 Fredericksburg Station 

 Ashland Station 

 Staples Mill Road Station 

 Boulevard Station 

 Broad Street Station 

 Main Street Station 

In a station area planning reference document for high speed and intercity rail, FRA (2011) 

suggests defining the station area in terms of 0.25- and 0.5-mile radii of the station. Accordingly, 

the study area for analysis of potential induced development is defined as the areas within a 0.5-

mile radius of the station locations. 

Also included for the indirect effects analysis for socioeconomics is Union Station in downtown 

Washington, D.C. Although Washington’s Union Station is beyond the limits of the Project, it 

serves as an existing hub for Amtrak services and an important origin and destination for 

potential passenger travel on the Washington, D.C. to Richmond line. Union Station is located 

near many government and commercial buildings and residential areas. 

Natural Resources 

The study area for indirect and cumulative effects to natural resources includes the seven eightdigit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed boundaries that encompass the Project limits. 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Section 3.1.1, provides descriptions of these watersheds, and 

Figure 3.1-1 in Chapter 3 shows their locations.

 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan (HUC 02070010) 

 Lower Potomac (HUC 02070011) 

 Lower Rappahannock (HUC 02080104) 

 Mattaponi (HUC 02080105) 

 Pamunkey (HUC 02080106) 

 Middle James-Willis (HUC 02080205) 

 Lower James (HUC 02080206) 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-219 

These watersheds represent the area within which there is potential for indirect and/or 

cumulative effects on waters and related resources (wetlands and floodplains) upstream and 

downstream of the study area. It also is a suitable area for consideration of the potential effects of 

habitat loss on the availability and connectivity of wildlife habitats.

Historic Properties 

The study area for indirect and cumulative effects to historic properties is the same as the Section 

106 APE for architectural and archaeological resources as defined in the historic properties 

analysis. The APE extends 500 feet on either side of the DC2RVA corridor center line in those 

areas where the proposed corridor would follow the existing rail line; however, in town or urban 

settings, the APE is reduced to one city block because dense modern development would often 

limit the effect of the proposed rail Project on historic resources. The APE was expanded to 1,000 

feet in areas where DRPT recommends highway-rail grade separations and also expanded as 

needed in areas of new roadways to capture potential viewshed impacts (areas where alterations 

to a resource’s setting and feeling could occur). This APE was approved by DHR in March 2015.

Direction and goals pertain to past trends and future expectations regarding social, economic, 

natural resource, and historic property conditions. Past actions regarding land use and 

development, including exploitation of natural resources, are reflected in the current conditions 

of the environment, as described in Chapter 3. Future conditions depend in part on the policies 

and planning activities of local and regional planners with respect to land use types and densities. 

Local comprehensive plans generally contain sections regarding visions or goals for desired 

patterns of development, as well as protection and preservation of sensitive environmental 

resources. Evidence indicates that transportation investments result in land use changes only in 

the presence of other factors. These factors include supportive local land use policies, local 

development incentives, availability of developable land, and a favorable investment climate 

(TRB, 2002). An understanding of local goals, combined with knowledge of demographic, 

economic, and social trends, contributes to understanding the potential for Project-influenced 

changes. Moreover, understanding goals permits consideration of the extent to which potential 

indirect effects align with those goals as a partial determinant of impact significance and an 

indicator of effects that merit further analysis. In Chapter 3, Section 3.11.3.2, Status of Local 

Planning/Development Trends, provides an overview of direction and goals. 

4.20.1.3 Step 3: Inventory Notable Features in the Study Area 

The objective of this step is to identify specific environmental issues within the indirect effects 

study areas against which the Project may be assessed. This is accomplished through conducting 

an inventory of notable features for each resource of concern. Notable features include specific 

valued, vulnerable, or unique elements of the environment. More-specific information regarding 

notable features for each resource is provided throughout Chapter 3, Affected Environment. 

4.20.1.4 Step 4: Identify Impact-Causing Activities of the Proposed Alternatives 

Step 4 identifies the impact-causing activities of the Project so that they may be compared with 

the goals and trends identified in Step Two and the notable features identified in Step Three to 

assess whether a potential for indirect effects exists (Step Five). General types of Project impactcausing activities include earthwork for track and station construction (clearing, excavation, and 

filling), landscaping, erosion control, remediation, changes in travel patterns, and changes in 

access. These activities have been considered in the analysis of direct effects for each resource in 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-220 

this chapter. Direct effects that may result from the Project can potentially trigger indirect effects 

through encroachment and alteration of the environment farther in distance or time. 

In addition to indirect effects that can be triggered by Project encroachment, indirect effects can 

also occur as a result of induced changes in land use patterns, population density, or growth rate 

that would otherwise not be expected without implementation of a proposed Project. General 

circumstances influencing the likelihood of induced development include: 

 Extent and maturity of existing transportation infrastructure 

 Accessibility 

 Location attractiveness 

 State of the regional economy 

 Land availability and value 

 Availability of utilities 

 Area vacancy rates 

 Local political/regulatory conditions 

 Land use controls 

For this Project, the potential for induced growth effects is focused on station locations. The existing 

railway passenger stations on the DC2RVA corridor require facilities and infrastructure 

improvements. The site preparation for station construction may include clearing and grubbing, 

grading for new or expanded platforms and trackage, utility service installation and relocations, 

and drainage installations. Other potential impact-causing activities at station locations may 

include provision of intermodal connectivity for local transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel; 

passenger pickup and drop offs; parking as either parking decks or paved parking areas; and 

ancillary retail and other amenities. The relevant station locations are as listed previously in Step 2. 

4.20.1.5 Step 5: Identify Indirect Effects for Analysis 

The objective of this step is to assess whether notable features identified in Step 3 would be 

indirectly affected by the proposed alternatives, taking into consideration the impact-causing 

activities and direct effects in Step 4. The following subjects were determined to potentially 

experience indirect effects from the Build Alternatives and were thus selected to move forward 

to the analysis of indirect effects in Step 6: 

 Socioeconomics and land use 

 Parks and recreation areas 

 Historic properties 

 Water resources 

 Floodplains 

 Wildlife and habitat 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-221 

4.20.1.6 Step 6: Analyze Indirect Effects and Evaluate Analysis Results 

Socioeconomics and Land Use 

Under the No Build Alternative, the population along or near the rail corridor is expected to 

continue to grow. The Washington/Northern Virginia, Fredericksburg, and Richmond urban 

areas would continue to function as hubs of residential and commercial activities. In-fill 

development and denser development would be expected in these areas. Less-developed lands 

between these hubs also would be expected to continue to experience development as people 

seek more space that is still within reasonable commuting distance of job opportunities. 

All existing rail station locations are in urban and suburban locations where considerable 

development already exists; however, under the Build Alternatives, further intensification of 

development densities could occur at these locations in response to demand for residential space 

and commercial services in areas convenient to the stations, generally within a 0.5-mile radius from 

the station. Government agencies and other entities often prepare planning documents to anticipate 

and guide the form and density of such development. For example, Amtrak prepared a Master Plan 

for Washington, D.C.’s Union Station (Amtrak, 2012). The Master Plan provides for relieving 

existing and future passenger rail congestion and accommodating triple the current number of 

passengers and double the current number of trains (including the new SEHSR trains) within the 

existing station footprint. This would be accomplished by improving existing facilities and 

constructing new facilities under and over the existing facilities, including air rights development 

of retail, hotel, commercial, and residential spaces. Construction would be phased over a 15- to 20-

year period. Phase 4 of the Master Plan provides further expanded tracks and platforms on a lower 

level and creation of a new Amtrak lower-level concourse, which would accommodate increased 

intercity passenger rail service south to Virginia and the Southeastern United States. Aside from 

the facilities that would specifically be built to serve increased intercity passenger rail services, it is 

difficult to determine specific increments of other types of development that could be attributed to 

actual implementation of the services. The variety of other passenger rail services at the station (e.g., 

Northeast Corridor [NEC], VRE, Metrorail), as well as the dense and dynamic existing and planned 

residential and commercial activities, also contribute to the overall development status of the 

station area and surrounding lands. Similarly, the City of Richmond’s Downtown Master Plan 

(2009) calls for Main Street Station to be a multimodal transportation hub for downtown Richmond. 

Recent and ongoing construction at the Main Street Station is aimed at rehabilitating the condition 

of the facilities, furthering the multimodal functions of the station, and promoting retail and social 

activities within and around the station. 

Other stations in the DC2RVA corridor that would be served by the additional intercity passenger 

trains may also experience some increment of increased development to take advantage of the 

transportation benefits provided; however, such development would be consistent with the 

urban or suburban patterns already existing and would be consistent with local land use planning 

and goals. Moreover, such development would only enhance the utilization and effectiveness of 

the passenger rail services. 

Except for the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), the Project involves improvements to an existing rail facility. As 

such, the Project would not divide or segment existing communities or interfere with community 

cohesion. Existing communities adjacent to the rail corridor are accustomed to the presence of the 

rail facility, the train traffic on it, and the noise and visual effects associated with it. However, in 

sections where parallel track would be added, the rail facility would be in incrementally closer 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-222 

proximity to residences and businesses, which may increase noise levels and/or remove visual 

buffers. It is possible that some residents or businesses may leave the area because of such increased 

proximity effects. It is also possible, however, that some people may be attracted to communities 

adjacent to the rail stations because of the improved travel times and access. 

The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would bisect residential development along two 

local roads (Thornton Rolling Road and Patriot Lane), which would adversely affect community 

cohesion by separating adjacent neighbors and introducing a rail line where one does not currently 

exist. The introduction of a rail line and rail traffic would alter the rural setting of the area and may 

make nearby lands less attractive for residential use. Likewise, the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C or 5C–Ashcake) would cross rural lands designated in Hanover County’s 

Comprehensive Plan for agricultural and forestry uses, including the locally designated Stanley 

Agricultural and Forestal District. In addition to displacing homes, this alternative would adversely 

affect community cohesion by separating adjacent neighbors and introducing a rail line where one 

does not currently exist. The introduction of a rail line and rail traffic would alter the rural setting 

of the area. The effects on community cohesion are mitigated, to some extent, through the provision 

of highway-rail grade at most of the roadways that cross the bypass alignments. 

The Project could contribute positively to economic activity along the DC2RVA corridor in the 

short term by providing jobs during Project design and construction and in the long term by 

reducing congestion, improving intercity travel time and reliability, and improving accessibility 

to employment at other location within the region by rail. 

Parks and Recreation Areas 

Many publicly owned parks and recreation areas exist immediately adjacent to the rail corridor. 

The No Build Alternative would have no induced development effects on these properties. None 

of these properties are at station locations where new or modified access would be provided to 

accommodate intercity passenger rail services. Accordingly, none of the Build Alternatives would 

result in induced growth effects on parks or recreation areas; however, these properties could 

potentially experience encroachment-alteration indirect effects under the Build Alternatives due to 

ongoing proximity effects over time, such as air quality, noise, and visual impacts from the railroad 

and trains operating on it. However, these are expected to be minor and would not differ 

substantially from the No Build Alternative. There would be direct effects of the Project on publicly 

owned parks and recreational areas by one or more of the Build Alternatives (see Section 4.14 of 

this chapter). Land at up to six parks would be directly used by the Project. None of these impacts 

would affect park activities, and the amount of right-of-way required would generally be below 0.4 

acre. The exception is at Long Bridge Park, where Build Alternative 1B would impact 1.45 acres. 

Impacts at the other parks would be temporary and would not result in incorporation of parkland 

into the railroad right-of-way. Noise levels under the Build Alternatives would generally be higher 

than existing noise levels or No Build Alternative noise levels; however, such noise levels would 

not rise to a level as to render the parklands unsuitable for their designated public recreational uses. 

Historic Properties 

The No Build Alternative would have no induced development effects on historic properties, 

except to the extent that station modifications are being planned and constructed to address other 

needs while also accommodating future increases in intercity passenger train services. For 

example, the City of Richmond’s Main Street Station and Trainshed (NRHP and NHL) is 

currently undergoing renovations that include retrofitting, upgrading, and expanding existing 

platforms to accommodate more trains; replacing the roof of the train shed; restoring pedestrian 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-223 

and bicycle travel through the train shed between Franklin Street and the farmer’s market; 

providing 80,000 square feet of retail space; and providing facilities and amenities to promote the 

site as an alternative transportation hub for transit, bicycles, and other alternative vehicles (City 

of Richmond Department of Economic & Community Development, 2016). These improvements 

also would support use of the station as a multimodal transportation hub for downtown 

Richmond (City of Richmond, 2009). While these improvements anticipate use of the station for 

both the Washington-to-Richmond and Richmond-to-Raleigh sections of the SEHSR corridor, 

additional improvements at the station would be needed to fully implement the increased 

intercity train services. 

Several of the Build Alternatives could have induced development effects on historic properties 

based on the different stations associated with the alternatives: 

 Build Alternative 2A in the Northern Virginia Area includes Alexandria Union Station 

(NRHP). Two other NRHP-listed historic properties are near the station – the George 

Washington National Masonic Memorial and the Rosemont Historic District. Although 

the Project involves no physical changes to the station, the increased train service could 

incrementally enhance the attractiveness of adjacent lands for more or denser 

development. However, the City of Alexandria’s Master Plan sets goals of encouraging 

quality, high-density mixed-use development near the King Street Metro Station, which 

is adjacent to the Alexandria Union Station. The major proposed changes involve phasing 

out industrial uses and replacing them with higher-density mixed-use development and 

moderate density office spaces. Accordingly, any increment of development induced by 

the Project at this location would be fully consistent with local planning for land use. 

Evaluation of effects on historic properties at this location pursuant to Section 106 of the 

NHPA is not complete. FRA’s preliminary conclusion is there will be no adverse effect, 

but this is subject to further consultation with DHR and the Section 106 consulting parties. 

 Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C in the Fredericksburg Area involve the Fredericksburg 

Amtrak/VRE Station. The historic station building (potentially eligible for NRHP) is not 

actually used for the station but is occupied by a restaurant. Passengers use the nearby 

platforms that have canopies to provide some protection from the weather. The station 

building is within the Fredericksburg Historic District (NRHP), which straddles the rail 

corridor. The historic station building would not be physically impacted. Instead, the 

platforms would be widened and lengthened, a new station building would be 

constructed, and a parking garage would be constructed. A tunnel would be constructed 

to connect the new station building with the parking garage. The increased train service 

could incrementally enhance the attractiveness of adjacent lands for more or denser 

development; however, the City of Fredericksburg’s Comprehensive Plan contains 

provisions aimed at protecting the city’s historic properties while also allowing 

compatible development through building rehabilitation, infill on vacant parcels, and 

replacement of noncontributing resources (City of Fredericksburg, 2010). Evaluation of 

effects on historic properties pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA is not complete. FRA’s 

preliminary conclusion is there will be no adverse effect on the historic train station 

building and an adverse effect on the Fredericksburg Historic District under Build 

Alternatives 3A and 3B, but this is subject to further consultation with DHR and the 

Section 106 consulting parties. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-224 

 Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake through the town of Ashland would 

involve the Ashland Station Depot. Although the building is no longer used as a station 

(with its interior turned over for other purposes), it is potentially eligible for NRHP. 

Increased train service at this station under Build Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 5D could 

incrementally enhance the attractiveness of adjacent lands for more or denser 

development. Evaluation of effects on the historic station for these alternatives pursuant 

to Section 106 of the NHPA is not complete. FRA’s preliminary conclusion is there will be 

an adverse effect under Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, but this is 

subject to further consultation with DHR and the Section 106 consulting parties. 

 The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia 

(Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) and one of the Build Alternatives that uses 

the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternative 6E) would involve the 

Main Street Station (NRHP and NHL) in downtown Richmond. Increased train service at 

this station could incrementally enhance the attractiveness of adjacent lands for more or 

denser development; however, development around the station is relatively dense, and 

ongoing planning and construction at the station are taking into account more intensive 

utilization of the station and its environs as a multimodal transportation hub, increased 

commercial uses, and increased social activities. Evaluation of effects on the historic 

station for these alternatives pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA is not complete. FRA’s 

preliminary conclusion is there will be no adverse effect under Build Alternatives 6B–SLine and 6E and an adverse effect under Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G. Build 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, and 6C would involve disuse of the Main Street Station, 

which would be an adverse effect. This preliminary conclusion is subject to further 

consultation with DHR and the Section 106 consulting parties. 

DRPT does not expect either the No Build Alternative or the Build Alternatives to have notable 

indirect encroachment-alteration effects on historic properties. 

Water Resources 

The No Build Alternative would have no induced development effects on water resources. The Build 

Alternatives may have incremental induced development effects on water resources near station 

areas; however, given the urban and suburban locations of these stations, land cover is relatively 

impervious, and the potential for increased runoff and diminished water quality is less than it would 

be if the induced development were to occur in more naturalized land cover types (e.g., forest). 

Under the No Build Alternative, stormwater runoff from the existing rail and station facilities 

would continue to transport sediments and roadway contaminants to local water bodies, 

including impaired streams. 

All the Build Alternatives involve direct loss of streams and wetlands as a result of track additions 

and modification, with the exception of Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C where there would be 

no stream impacts. Potential temporary indirect impacts of the Build Alternatives during Project 

construction include increased downstream sedimentation and turbidity from in-stream work, 

and possible spills or non-point source pollutants entering groundwater or surface water from 

storm runoff. Each Build Alternative would incrementally increase the amount of impervious 

surface, resulting in increased stormwater runoff flows from affected surfaces. If untreated, 

increased flows would incrementally increase the transport of sediments and roadway 

contaminants to streams crossed by or adjacent to the rail corridor. These pollutants can then be 

transported farther downstream and into wetland areas. Pollutant levels in runoff and the extent 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-225 

of downstream impacts are very difficult to quantify because there are many variables 

surrounding land use and stream dynamics. Given that a meaningful projection of the extent of 

pollutant loads from each alternative cannot be made without extensive analysis, the best 

predictor of relative degree of impacts would then be the amount of increase in impervious 

surfaces and the number of stream crossings for each alternative. Specific quantities of additional 

impervious surfaces for each Build Alternative are not yet known, but they are expected to be 

similar among the alternatives given the substantial overlap of the alternatives. 

Floodplains 

The No Build Alternative would have no induced development effects on floodplains. Likewise, 

the Build Alternatives would not have induced development impacts on floodplains because 

none of the locations where induced development might occur are in floodplains. With respect to 

encroachment-alteration indirect effects, the existing rail tracks displaced 100-year floodplains by 

placing bridges and culverts at stream crossings within the floodplains. The Build Alternatives 

would require new or modified bridges and extensions of culverts, which could potentially cause 

indirect effects with respect to changes in flood flow elevations and changes in floodplain 

configurations. While floodplain encroachments are likely, Project design under any of the 

alternatives would be consistent with federal policies and procedures for the location and 

hydraulic design of encroachments on floodplains. Therefore, DRPT does not expect that the 

Project would cause notable increases in flood levels, increase the probability of flooding, or 

increase the potential for property loss and hazard to life. Furthermore, the Project would not be 

expected to have substantial indirect effects on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 

Wildlife and Habitat 

The No Build Alternative would have no induced development effects on wildlife and habitat. 

DRPT does not expect the Build Alternatives to have notable induced development impacts on 

wildlife and habitat because all locations of potential induced development are in urban and 

suburban areas where available natural habitat is very limited. With respect to encroachmentalteration indirect effects of the Build Alternatives, wildlife habitat along the rail corridor is highly 

variable. In some areas, development has entirely displaced or at least fragmented forested habitat. 

In other areas, sizable blocks of forested habitat remain, though in many cases it is fragmented by 

agricultural activities. While the No Build Alternative would not result in further fragmentation of 

wildlife habitats due to rail construction, present and planned future development and 

transportation projects would continue to reduce habitat areas. Under the No Build Alternative, 

wildlife that occupies habitats adjacent to the rail corridor would continue to experience 

disturbance from noise, habitat degradation from soil erosion and sedimentation, introduction of 

invasive plants, and risk of collision with vehicles and trains. Stream hydrology and water quality 

within aquatic habitats downstream of the rail corridor are currently affected by erosive stormwater 

velocities and transport of sediment and roadway contaminants in stormwater runoff. The Build 

Alternatives may incrementally increase ongoing habitat impacts due to expansion of the rail 

facilities. Adjacent habitats would be further fragmented by removal of habitat for construction of 

the proposed improvements. Such habitat disturbances and losses could incrementally increase 

competition for resources in diminished habitats by displaced populations. 

The indirect impacts to water quality discussed earlier would potentially affect habitat quality for 

aquatic species living in streams and wetlands downstream of the rail corridor. Sediments and 

pollutants in runoff may contribute to changes in macrobenthic community structure and 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-226 

composition, affecting fish and amphibian populations that rely on them as a food source, as well 

as birds and mammals higher on the food chain. 

4.20.1.7 Step 7: Assess Consequences and Develop Mitigation 

Various indirect effects for the Project are identified in Step 6. While planning judgment allows the 

identification of potential indirect effects, insufficient data exist to fully assess the consequences of 

these indirect effects. For example, while it is reasonable to predict that direct impacts to water 

quality may occur at stream crossings by the railroad, there is not enough information to determine 

how far downstream such impacts would persist. Despite the lack of detailed data, DRPT expects 

that the consequences of the indirect effects would be limited because: 

 The proposed improvements would modify an existing rail facility within which the 

locations of potential induced development are limited to station areas where 

development already is prevalent. 

 Any induced development that may occur would be largely compatible with existing 

development and would actually be desirable in the context of promoting more compact 

development patterns consistent with rail mass transit, multimodal transportation hubs, 

and facilitation of intercity travel that does not rely on the automobile. 

 Any induced development would be consistent with local planning goals and land use plans. 

 The narrow linear nature of the Project presents a limited footprint of direct impacts and, 

therefore, a limited potential for expansive indirect impacts attributable to encroachment 

and alteration. 

 Impacts of the Project can be minimized and mitigated in many ways, including: 

- Implementation of temporary and permanent stormwater management features and 

erosion and sediment controls. 

- Compensation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts. 

- Resolution of adverse effects on historic properties through design changes and other 

measures developed in consultation with DHR and other Section 106 consulting parties. 

4.20.2 Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are defined as the impact on the environment that results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time. The cumulative effects analysis uses a five-part evaluation process 

based on FHWA guidance: 

1. What is the geographic area affected by the Project? 

2. What are the resources affected by the Project? 

3. What are the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that have impacted 

these resources? 

4. What were those impacts? 

5. What is the overall impact on these various resources from the accumulation of the actions? 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-227 

4.20.2.1 Geographic Area and Time Span 

The geographic limits of the resource-specific study areas used for the cumulative effects analysis 

are the same as those used for the indirect effects analysis. The time span for the analysis is from 

the mid-1950s (when highways and automobile use were rapidly expanding and rail passenger 

travel was declining) to 2045, which is the design year for the Project (the horizon year for traffic 

analysis and Project design). Notwithstanding, a general synopsis of human activities before the 

mid-1950s is provided as background. 

4.20.2.2 Affected Resources 

The resources that would potentially experience cumulative effects are the same as those that 

would experience direct and/or indirect effects. 

4.20.2.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

Past Actions 

General Past Development. The current condition of the affected environment reflects the 

impacts of thousands of years of prehistoric occupations and four centuries of historic occupation. 

In the Northern Virginia, Fredericksburg, and Richmond portions of the DC2RVA corridor, many 

of the past actions that have broadly contributed to the baseline for this analysis occurred as part 

of a general development progression advancing from subsistence hunting and gathering to 

agricultural uses to increasingly dense urban/suburban occupations. This incremental land use 

intensification in portions of the DC2RVA corridor has contributed to increased benefits to society 

from expanding communities with growing employment and increasing standards of living, but 

also a decline in natural resource conditions. Other portions of the DC2RVA corridor remain 

largely in agricultural or rural residential uses, with a correspondingly greater portion of 

remaining natural resources. These stages of progressively more intensive utilization of the 

environment by humans encompass a multitude of past actions that cannot be reasonably 

enumerated; however, the cumulative impact of these actions is represented in the current state 

or condition of environmental resources. 

Existing Rail. In 1834, RF&P was formed, connecting Richmond to Washington, D.C. via 

Fredericksburg. The railroad served as a bridge line between other railroads to the north and 

south to facilitate movement of freight and passengers. Its strategic location allowed it to connect 

with virtually every major northeastern and southeastern railroad. By the 1930s, the line was 

accommodating many passenger rail services, including extensive long-distance interstate travel 

between New York and Florida. During the 1960s through the 1980s, several railroads merged 

and consolidated, and RF&P eventually became part of CSXT. Rail passenger travel declined 

through the 1960s and 1970s as the interstate highway system made automobile travel more 

convenient, and air travel diverted most long-distance travelers. In 1971, Amtrak took over 

passenger services on the RF&P line. As highways became more congested, rail travel again 

became attractive, particularly in urban areas such as Northern Virginia. Establishment of VRE 

in 1992 provided a new alternative to commuting on congested highways between 

Fredericksburg and Washington, D.C. Amtrak trains using the line include regional services 

connecting to the NEC services that run from Washington to New York and Boston, as well as 

some long-distance service. Amtrak has expanded service in the corridor since 1992, adding 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) and Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) trains. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-228 

Road Development. The 1918 Virginia General Assembly approved establishment of the first 

state highway system, a network of 4,002 miles for which construction and maintenance would 

be the direct responsibility of the highway commissioner and his staff. Among the roads to be 

included was the Richmond-Washington Highway, the predecessor of U.S. Route 1 and I-95. A 

fully paved Route 1 was not completed until 1927 (VDOT, 2006). 

In the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1944, Congress called for designation of a national system of 

interstate highways that was “so located as to connect by routes, as direct as practicable, the 

principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers, to serve the national defense, and to 

connect at suitable border points with routes of continental importance.” However, it was not 

until passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 that enough funding was provided for 

development of the system. In Virginia, early emphasis was on the I-95 corridor because it was 

to parallel U.S. Route 1, which by the mid-1950s had become the most heavily traveled through 

road in Virginia and one of the nation’s busiest highways. I-95 had lower crash rates than 

conventional roads; reduced travel times; stimulated commercial, industrial, and residential 

growth; and provided broader tax bases for local governments related to the associated economic 

development (VDOT, 2006). 

Development of an arterial network to supplement the interstate system was authorized by the 

1964 Virginia General Assembly. 

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

As described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, population in the DC2RVA corridor and adjacent 

urban regions continues to grow, increasing demand for reliable and safe travel options. With 

population growth comes increased development, consumption, and freight movement. 

Construction of homes, businesses, community facilities, and supporting infrastructure will 

continue into the future throughout the DC2RVA corridor; however, those developments are too 

numerous and unspecific to enumerate here. Illustrative of the types of infrastructure other than 

transportation facilities needed to support ongoing development is a 340-megawatt electrical 

power generating plant at Doswell approved by the State Corporation Commission (SCC) (SCC, 

2016). Section 3.11.3.2 outlines expected future land use and planned growth and development 

as envisioned by local jurisdictions and regional planning organizations. 

The following rail and transit projects have been identified within the indirect and cumulative 

effects study area. 

 Washington Union Station Capacity upgrade 

 Virginia Avenue Tunnel expansion (under construction) 

 VRE 4th Track: CP Virginia – Long Bridge 

 Long Bridge Project 

 RF&P Franconia-Featherstone improvements (CSXT “Fast Track agreement”) 

 RF&P Powells Creek – Arkendale improvements 

 Main Line Relocation Project at Acca Yard and Crossovers South of the James River 

 Richmond-Petersburg section improvements for service expansion to Norfolk 

 DC2RVA Franconia – Occoquan Improvements 

 VRE Broad Run/Crossroads Yard expansion 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-229 

 VRE Gainesville/Haymarket Extension 

 VRE Station Platform Expansion Program 

 VRE Potomac Shores Station 

 GRTC Pulse Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Implementation (The Pulse BRT) 

 WMATA Silver Line Phase II Implementation (under construction) 

 Crystal City BRT/Streetcar Corridor 

The Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan for the National Capital Region 

contains projects to add nearly 1,200 new lane miles of roadway throughout the Washington 

Metropolitan Area. Notable projects in the Virginia portion of the region include the following: 

 I-395 express lanes between the Capital Beltway and the Pentagon 

 I-66 corridor improvements from U.S. 15 to Capital Beltway 

 I-66 express lanes inside the beltway 

 I-66 eastbound widening inside the Beltway 

 U.S. 1, Richmond Highway BRT 

 U.S. 1 widening 

The 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Fredericksburg region contains 37 projects to 

increase roadway capacity, replace or expand aging bridges, enhance safety and operations, 

improve intersections, increase commuter parking options, and provide enhanced 

accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians. Notable projects include: 

 Extension of I-95 express lanes 

 Reconstruction of I-95/Route 630 interchange at Stafford 

 Replacement of Falmouth bridge on U.S. 1 

 Widening of U.S. 17 in Spotsylvania and Stafford counties 

The Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization’s draft Plan 2040 includes many 

highway improvement projects on I-95, I-295, I-64, US 1, US 301, and others. 

4.20.2.4 Impacts 

Socioeconomics and Land Use 

Impact from Proposed Project. Except for the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and 

the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), the land use and relocations 

impacts are relatively modest compared to the length of the Project. Including the bypass 

alternatives, the total number of residential relocations would range from approximately 10 to 

150, depending on the specific combination of alternatives within each area. Of the larger number, 

just over 40 would be within the 2 bypass sections. The lower number reflects the ability to contain 

much of the Build Alternative improvements within the existing rail corridor for large portions 

of its length. Acquisition of properties and relocations of families, businesses, farms, and 

nonprofit organizations would occur in accordance with standards of the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended, 1987). Any individual 

displaced as a result of the acquisition of real property, in whole or in part, would be eligible to 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-230 

receive reimbursement for the fair market value of the property acquired, as well as moving costs. 

Displaced property owners would be provided relocation assistance and advisory services 

together with the assurance of the availability of decent, safe, and sanitary housing. Relocation 

resources would be made available to all relocatees without discrimination. 

The Build Alternatives would reduce congestion and improve travel time and reliability within the 

rail corridor. These improvements to mobility would generally contribute positively to the quality 

of life for local communities and support the anticipated continued economic growth; however, the 

two sections of potential bypasses would convert lands largely in rural residential and agricultural 

uses to transportation use. These conversions would be inconsistent with local comprehensive 

plans and would result in some divisions of rural communities. Notwithstanding, the bypasses still 

would provide transportation benefits and would incrementally decrease some impacts along 

sections of the existing rail line through the City of Fredericksburg and the Town of Ashland. 

The Build Alternatives could induce more or denser development at station locations as a result 

of the improved transportation services; however, such development generally would be 

desirable to enhance the effectiveness of passenger rail services. Furthermore, because the station 

locations are in already urbanized areas, such development would be consistent with local plans, 

policies, and goals. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. Past and present actions have changed the landscape 

dramatically and have resulted in the conversion of forest land to agricultural lands to residential, 

commercial, and industrial land uses as the populations and economies of localities along the 

DC2RVA corridor grew. It is presumed that in prehistoric times forests once covered the entirety 

of the area surrounding the rail corridor. Those forests were displaced by agriculture and 

development long before modern times. Therefore, tree cover that exists today is due to multiple 

regenerations of tree growth. Agriculture, particularly tobacco farming, depleted the soil, and 

much of the soil that was not depleted washed away due to erosion of unprotected soil surfaces. 

Livestock waste contributed to water pollution. By the mid-1950s, development accelerated 

sharply in Northern Virginia, largely as a result of a growing federal government sector and postWorld War II prosperity. Housing booms in counties bordering Washington D.C. were fed by 

postwar affluence and the desire of people to own their own homes and land. The Interstate 

Highway Act authorized construction of high speed roads that made living farther from work a 

possibility. By the time I-95 was completed between Richmond and Washington, D.C., several 

residential subdivisions had already been built in jurisdictions along the DC2RVA corridor. In 

recent times, the City of Fredericksburg and portions of the surrounding Stafford and 

Spotsylvania counties have become bedroom communities to the metropolitan Washington 

region, as well as becoming economic activity centers themselves. The City of Richmond and 

surrounding counties collectively have become the third largest metropolitan area in Virginia 

ranked by population. The urbanization of these areas has created neighborhoods, facilitated 

social interaction, provided business and employment opportunities, facilitated economies of 

scale in community services such as education and public safety, and provided connectivity 

through robust multimodal transportation systems. 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Under the No Build Alternative, 

the socioeconomic and land use impacts of the Build Alternatives would not occur and would 

not contribute to overall cumulative impacts. The foreseeable future projects noted above may 

have various socioeconomic and land use impacts throughout the study area; however, there is 

not enough information to reasonably quantify them. The foreseeable transportation projects 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-231 

listed above are all along existing transportation facilities. As such, disruptive socioeconomic and 

land use effects could be largely limited by containing construction within existing rights-of-way 

to the extent possible. Furthermore, these projects also would be subject to NEPA and other 

regulatory processes that are designed to help avoid substantial impacts to communities. Future 

projects also would be guided by local comprehensive plans, which identify areas for compatible 

planned growth while accommodating future planned transportation improvements. 

Cumulative Effect. Except for the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and the Ashland 

Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), the nature and magnitude of the direct and 

indirect effects among the Build Alternatives are very similar. While there are some differences 

in the extent of impacts associated with each alternative, these differences as well as the overall 

impacts are small in the context of the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Build Alternatives 3C, 5C, and 5C–Ashcake would have greater socioeconomic and land 

use impacts than the other Build Alternatives. Nevertheless, at a corridor-wide scale, these 

impacts are relatively small; however, at local scales, these impacts would be felt more acutely. 

Parks and Recreation Areas 

Impact from Proposed Project. There would be direct effects of the Project on publicly owned 

parks and recreational areas by one or more of the Build Alternatives (see Section 4.14 of this 

chapter). Land at up to six parks would be directly used by the Project. None of these impacts 

would affect park activities, and the amount of right-of-way required would generally be below 

0.4 acre. The exception is at Long Bridge Park, where Build Alternative 1B would impact 1.45 

acres. Impacts at the other parks would be temporary and would not result in incorporation of 

parkland into the railroad right-of-way. Noise levels under the Build Alternatives would be 

higher than existing noise levels or No Build Alternative noise levels; however, such noise levels 

would not rise to a level as to render the parklands unsuitable for their designated public 

recreational uses. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. Past actions have preserved notable acreages of land 

throughout the study area for conservation and recreational uses. At the same time, some past 

actions may have had direct physical encroachment impacts on some parks and recreation areas. 

Population increases and associated traffic increases may have caused higher levels of traffic 

noise within parks and placed greater wear and tear on park facilities due to greater use. 

Development adjacent to parks may have contributed to visual impacts to parks and increased 

volumes of stormwater flow to streams running through parks. 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Under the No Build Alternative, 

the parks and recreation area impacts of the Build Alternatives would not occur and would not 

contribute to overall cumulative impacts to parks and recreation areas. Some of the foreseeable 

future projects noted above may have various park and recreational area impacts throughout the 

study area; however, there is not enough information to reasonably quantify them. 

Notwithstanding, the projects that would be subject to federal transportation agency approvals 

also would be subject to Section 4(f) provisions that require avoidance and minimization of uses 

of land from publicly owned public parks and recreation areas. 

Cumulative Effect. The Build Alternatives would have only minor impacts to parks and 

recreation areas. Additionally, the legal protections afforded parks and recreation areas by 

Section 4(f) for federal-aid transportation projects and the plan review processes by local 

jurisdictions for other projects greatly limit the potential for impacts by future projects. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-232 

Accordingly, no substantial adverse cumulative impacts to parks and recreation areas by the 

Project are anticipated. 

Historic Properties 

Impact from Proposed Project. The APE encompasses 158 historic properties. A preliminary 

determination of effects has concluded that 33 historic properties could experience adverse effects 

from 1 or more of the alternatives, as outlined in Section 4.13. A formal effects determination would 

be coordinated with DHR once a recommended Preferred Alternative is selected. Where FRA 

determines that the Project will have an adverse effect on historic resources, Section 106 requires 

that efforts be undertaken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. As part of this process, 

FRA and DRPT have initiated consultation with DHR and other “consulting parties,” such as the 

National Park Service (NPS), local historical societies, and property owners. Due to the nature of 

the this Project, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) is underway to outline: (1) studies still required 

once a recommended Preferred Alternative has been selected (namely, additional Phase I and Phase 

II archaeological studies on the main corridor and road improvement areas and full cultural 

resource studies on the bypasses, if selected); and (2) tasks that would be undertaken to mitigate 

adverse effects. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. Damage to or loss of historic resources was far more 

prevalent from past actions that occurred before the NHPA. The NHPA and the establishment of 

historic resource protection objectives at the local planning level have reduced the rate of impacts 

to historic resources. 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Notwithstanding the protections 

now afforded, conflicts between protection of historic properties and development and 

transportation projects are expected to continue under the No Build Alternative, especially 

because non-federal actions, such as private developments, are not subject to the NHPA. Potential 

effects include permanent loss and proximity effects (noise and visual impacts) from present and 

planned future development and transportation projects. 

Cumulative Effect. The Build Alternatives would adversely affect historic properties and 

contribute to the cumulative degradation of historic properties. However, feasible and prudent 

avoidance alternatives and measures to minimize harm to historic properties would be 

incorporated into the Project. 

Water Resources 

Impact from Proposed Project. The Project corridor crosses more than 350 rivers and streams, 51 

of which are characterized as impaired on Virginia’s Section 303(d) list (see Section 3.1.6 in 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment, for details). As shown in Figure 3.1-1, the following boundaries 

of watersheds are crossed by the Project: 

 The Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan Watershed encompasses approximately 

831,483 acres, with roughly 45 percent of the watershed forested. 

 The Lower Potomac River Watershed encompasses approximately 1,160,160 acres, most 

of which is forested. 

 The Pamunkey Watershed encompasses approximately 941,032 acres, most of which is 

forested. 

 The Lower Rappahannock Watershed encompasses approximately 738,446 acres. Half of the 

area is forested, with the remainder consisting largely of agricultural and developed land. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-233 

 The Mattaponi Watershed encompasses approximately 582,426 acres of which 

approximately 70 percent is forested. 

 The Middle James-Willis Watershed encompasses approximately 615,449 acres. 

 The Lower James Watershed encompasses approximately 1,135,000 acres, approximately 

48 percent of which is in urban and suburban uses. 

Details on the impacts of the alternatives are provided in Section 4.1. Unavoidable impacts to 

streams and wetlands would be mitigated. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. Past and present actions within the affected watersheds 

have impacted an unknown quantity of streams and wetlands; however, the water quality effects 

of these actions are reflected in impairment designations and establishment of TMDLs of 

pollutants in certain waters, including the Chesapeake Bay, into which most of the affected 

watersheds drain. 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Under the No Build Alternative, 

the water resources impacts of the Build Alternatives would not occur and would not contribute to 

overall cumulative impacts; however, the other reasonably foreseeable projects noted earlier would 

have incremental effects on water resources. Before implementation, these projects would be 

required to undergo analysis of alternatives that avoid and minimize water resources impacts to 

the extent practicable, and project proponents would have to obtain any required permits. 

Compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts also would be required. 

Cumulative Effect. While the impacts of the Project and the multiple other reasonably foreseeable 

transportation projects and other likely development would be additive, these impacts would not 

all be occurring simultaneously due to the phasing of construction over a period of years. 

Additionally, the impacts would be largely disbursed over many streams and multiple 

watersheds. Furthermore, the direct impact of the Project at each stream would be localized and 

the reach of the Project’s indirect impacts is not expected to be extensive. Stormwater generated 

through new impervious surfaces would be treated through improved or new stormwater 

management facilities. Implementation of compensatory mitigation, both for the Project and 

other foreseeable actions would offset the adverse direct and indirect impacts. Moreover, local 

jurisdictions have established preservation and conservation programs that serve to improve 

water quality by protecting streams and controlling development. For example, Fairfax County’s 

Environmental Quality Corridor (EQC) system protects the county’s stream valleys by 

incorporating them into a system of connected parklands and trail systems. The EQC system 

provides buffer lands that separate streams from land uses and development activities that have 

the potential to degrade the ecological quality of streams (Fairfax County, 2013). Prince William 

County’s Comprehensive Plan limits development within the designated “Rural Area” and 

includes various rural preservation goals and policies that serve to protect water quality through 

careful land use planning (Prince William County, 2008). Both counties also prepare watershed 

management plans or studies that assess, monitor, and evaluate water quality and identify 

priorities and BMPs for improving water quality. Other counties and cities encompassed by the 

watersheds have similar policies and programs in place to protect water resources. 

Floodplains 

Impact from Proposed Project. As noted in Section 4.1.1.2 of this chapter, none of the floodplain 

encroachments by the Build Alternatives would represent a significant encroachment. The Project 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-234 

would be designed to not encourage, induce, allow, serve, support, or otherwise facilitate 

incompatible base floodplain development. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. The cumulative extent of impacts to floodplains from 

past and present actions is not known; however, it can be assumed that the degree of impacts was 

greater before federal initiatives to avoid and minimize floodplain impacts (e.g., EO 11988 in 

1977). State and local initiatives also now protect floodplains and reduce floodplain 

encroachments by development (Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act enabled localities to 

establish resource protection areas along streams draining to the Chesapeake Bay). 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Under the No Build Alternative, 

the floodplain impacts of the Build Alternatives would not occur and would not contribute to 

overall cumulative impacts. Reasonably foreseeable future public or private actions could 

potentially impact floodplains; however, these actions would also be subject to federal and local 

floodplain protections that would minimize potential impacts. 

Cumulative Effect. Because the floodplain encroachments by the Project do not represent 

significant encroachments, and because federal and local initiatives would continue to exert 

floodplain protections, adverse cumulative effects of the Project to floodplains are expected to be 

negligible. 

Wildlife and Habitat 

Impact from Proposed Project. Most of the habitat within the LOD for all Build Alternatives 

includes either developed lands or aquatic habitats. A limited amount of forested and other 

upland habitat would be disturbed by the Build Alternatives, with the exception of the 

Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 

5C–Ashcake). Disturbance or loss of these upland habitats would not result in substantial impacts 

to wildlife due to the widespread availability of such habitats within the study area. In general, 

habitats that would be impacted are directly adjacent to the existing rail line and are already 

altered by local activities, including operation of the railroad. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. As outlined above under cumulative socioeconomic and 

land use impacts, past and present actions have changed the landscape dramatically and 

converted natural habitats to human uses. These changes have resulted in considerable 

fragmentation and loss of habitat throughout the study area. 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Under the No Build Alternative, 

the wildlife and habitat impacts of the Build Alternative would not occur and would not 

contribute to overall cumulative impacts; however, the other reasonably foreseeable actions noted 

above would be expected to contribute to further fragmentation and losses of habitat over time. 

Cumulative Effect. Adverse effects on wildlife habitats are expected to continue to accrue with 

anticipated population growth in the study area, even in the absence of the Project. The relative 

contribution of the Build Alternatives to the effects of terrestrial and aquatic habitat losses is small 

given the existing fragmented condition of affected habitat areas along the existing rail corridor. 

The contribution of the Build Alternatives to degradation of water quality within aquatic habitats 

is also minimal given that the proposed improvements are being made to an existing rail facility 

and stormwater management measures would be implemented in accordance with federal, state, 

and local regulations to minimize onsite and downstream water quality impacts. Project 

proponents would be responsible for coordination with applicable federal and state agencies. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-235 

4.20.2.5 Overall Cumulative Effects 

Overall, the No Build Alternative reflects the absence of the incremental direct and indirect 

impacts of the Build Alternatives relative to accumulation of adverse effects; however, adverse 

environmental effects, though offset to some degree by mitigation and compensation measures, 

would continue to accumulate due to ongoing implementation of other reasonably foreseeable 

projects and development in general. Furthermore, cities along the rail corridor would also not 

benefit from the transportation improvements that would accompany the Build Alternatives. 

While providing transportation benefits, the Build Alternatives would incrementally increase 

environmental effects. Where these effects would occur along the existing rail corridor, they are 

relatively small in the context of the entire corridor as well as the localized impact sites. In contrast, 

impacts with the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would be correspondingly greater because of the size of new rightof-way required; therefore, on a proportionate basis, these bypass alternatives would contribute more 

to cumulative effects than comparable lengths of corridor on existing rail alignment. 

In summary, considerable adverse impacts to sensitive and vulnerable resources have occurred 

over time, first due to agricultural uses of the land and then to residential, commercial, industrial, 

institutional, and public infrastructure development; however, current regulatory requirements 

and planning practices are helping avoid or minimize the contribution of present and future 

actions to adverse cumulative effects. With the exception of the bypass alternatives, when 

considered in the context of the Project setting, the magnitude and intensity of the impacts of the 

Build Alternatives generally would not have substantial cumulative effects, particularly 

considering the efforts to minimize adverse impacts of the Project and other mitigation measures 

to be implemented. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and the Ashland Bypass 

(Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) may be perceived as having a more substantial 

cumulative effect, at least at the local level where the impacts would be most felt. 

4.21 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND 

LONG-TERM BENEFITS 

This section addresses in general terms the proposed Project’s relationship between local shortterm impacts/use of resources and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. 

Build alternatives were developed based on sound planning for local, regional, and statewide 

transportation needs within the context of present and possible future traffic requirements and 

land use patterns. Coupled with the environmentally sensitive design of the proposed Project and 

BMPs, this helps to ensure that the short-term use of resources related to construction would be 

outweighed by the long-term benefits of implementing the proposed Project. 

The most disruptive local short-term impacts associated with the Build Alternatives would occur 

during land acquisition and Project construction. The short-term use of the environment and of 

human, socioeconomic, cultural, and natural resources contributes to the long-term productivity 

of the DC2RVA corridor. Most short-term, construction-related impacts would occur within or 

near the proposed right-of-way. 

Some existing homes, farms, and businesses would be displaced under the Build Alternatives; 

however, adequate replacement housing, land, and space are available for homeowners, tenants, 

and business owners. Residential displacements would range from approximately 10 to 150 over 

the entire DC2RVA corridor, with the highest number of displacements associated with the 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-236 

Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 

5C–Ashcake), and the single-station alternative at Broad Street in Richmond (Build Alternative 

6C). DRPT estimates that these alternatives would result in 21, 21, and 112 residential 

displacements, respectively. Business displacements would range from approximately 10 to 20 

over the entire DC2RVA corridor and most would occur in Alternative Area 6 (Richmond). 

Improved access to intercity travel within the DC2RVA corridor would contribute to long-term 

residential and business growth. 

Construction activities would create short-term air quality impacts, such as dust due to 

earthwork, road and rail improvements, and exhaust from construction vehicles. Short-term 

noise impacts would be unavoidable due to use of heavy equipment. Air and noise abatement 

measures, discussed in Sections 4.6 and 4.7, would be used to minimize these short-term impacts 

during construction. Short-term visual impacts would occur near the construction corridor. 

Mitigation measures, such as reducing slope cuts outside necessary road widths, reducing 

vegetation removal, leaving native vegetation screens in place, and minimizing the alteration of 

scenic viewsheds, would be used to reduce long-term visual resource impacts. 

Implementation of BMPs for protection of surface waters would minimize potential water quality 

impacts. A short-term impact from construction would be removal of biotic communities and wildlife 

within the proposed right-of-way and construction staging areas Overall, the Build Alternatives 

would have minimal short-term impacts relative to the long-term benefits of increased intercity 

passenger rail service in the DC2RVA corridor, and the ultimate extension of the SEHSR corridor 

along the East Coast. The elimination of some of the existing at-grade rail crossings and construction 

of grade-separated crossings would also improve the safety of rail crossings and reduce roadway 

delay. Construction-related activities would be localized and temporary. Short-term gains to the local 

economy should be recognized as a result of hiring local firms and labor, as well as purchasing local 

services and supplies to construct the proposed Project. Once completed, the benefits of long-term 

productivity in terms of improved mobility and safety would be realized. Implementation of the 

Project would enhance the existing transportation network between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond, VA, and provide a viable travel alternative for residents and users. This is consistent with 

the purpose of the proposed Project. Based on the significant contribution to the long-term objectives 

of regional and local plans for development, the proposed Project is consistent with the maintenance 

and enhancement of the long-term productivity at the local, regional, state, and national levels. 

Benefits of the Project are described in more detail in Chapter 1. 

4.22 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

Construction of one of the Build Alternatives would require certain irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of natural resources, energy (which would include fossil fuels), manpower, 

materials, and fiscal resources. Because most of the Project would be constructed within existing 

railroad right-of-way, land acquisition for construction of the proposed Project would be 

minimized; however, there would be an irreversible conversion of land to a transportation use in 

areas of new alignment and in areas where the existing road network would be modified to 

accommodate rail crossing closures and consolidations and to avoid historic resources. If a 

greater need for the use of the land were to arise or if the transportation facility were no longer 

needed, it could be converted to another use. There is no reason to believe such a conversion 

would be necessary or desirable. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-237 

The acquisition of new right-of-way and new construction within the existing right-of-way may 

result in short-term and long-term losses and alterations to the natural resources in the area. 

Upland and aquatic biotic communities, as well as agricultural land, may be committed to rail 

service where new right-of-way is required. The most apparent impact may be loss of aquatic or 

terrestrial habitat productivity and connectivity; therefore, wildlife abundance may decline in the 

area as a result of habitat destruction. Increased noise associated with the Project may be 

intolerable to some wildlife species. Forested areas may be cleared in some locations, and 

wetlands and other surface waters may be filled to accommodate new bridges and underpasses. 

Riprap may be placed along stream banks at bridge crossings, reducing habitat within riparian 

zone. After construction, some habitat types may be restored within the construction limits, 

although their value to wildlife is unlikely to equate to that which was lost. If wetlands are filled 

for new construction, mitigation of impacts would likely involve restoration of degraded 

wetlands within the same watershed. In the long term, this would offset the loss of wetland 

habitats within the Project construction limits. The commitment of natural resources within 

existing and new right-of-way is a permanent loss of productive wildlife habitat. 

Construction of the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) or the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would also increase habitat fragmentation within the DC2RVA 

corridor. As described in Section 4.10, habitat fragmentation can increase the risk of predation or 

displacement of native species by invasive, exotic species. Loss of habitat, mortality due to 

collisions, barrier effect, and reduction in habitat quality are the main impacts of habitat 

fragmentation by railroads. On a local scale, trains may affect wildlife habitats through the 

introduction of exotic plant species (e.g., seeds), emission of toxic contaminants (e.g., heavy 

metals), or right-of-way management (e.g., herbicide application). Section-specific habitat 

fragmentation effects are discussed in Section 4.10. Fossil fuels, labor, and construction materials 

would be expended in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials, as well as during 

construction of the Project. While these materials are generally not retrievable, they are not in 

short supply, and their use would not have an adverse effect on the continued availability of these 

resources. The steel rails required for the Project could be recycled should an alternate use of the 

property be selected. Any construction would also require a substantial, one-time expenditure of 

state and federal funds, which are not retrievable and could be used instead on other projects 

within the local community or in other parts of the country. 

Specific natural resource impacts for the Build Alternatives have been previously detailed in this 

chapter. When reviewed in the overall context of the Project and taken in total, they are 

proportionately small compared to the benefits of the Project. 

4.23 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

The following table (Table 4.23-1) provides a summary of the potential impacts of each of the 

Build Alternatives upon the built and natural environments. It is the intent of this table to 

summarize the key results that differentiate the Build Alternatives and assist in the decisions to 

be made. All impacts shown are permanent impacts (i.e., not temporary disturbances due to 

construction activities). Any “Change” shown is consistent with how that resource was evaluated 

in this chapter (i.e., “change” in the transportation resource compares 2025 Build Alternatives to 

2025 No Build conditions; “change” in the air quality and energy resources compares 2045 Build 

Alternatives to 2045 No Build conditions). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-238 

As noted earlier in this chapter, DRPT uses two future planning years for analysis of the DC2RVA 

Project. Year 2025 is the current best estimate of when construction of the DC2RVA infrastructure 

could be completed and the new DC2RVA service would be placed in operation. All the physical 

impact analyses within this Draft EIS on human and natural resources are estimated for 2025, and 

compared to the No Build Alternative conditions projected for 2025. Year 2045 is used by DRPT 

to demonstrate that the proposed project is sufficient to deliver the proposed passenger rail 

benefits and an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor over a 20-year time horizon 

following the completion of the passenger project. DRPT also used the 2045 planning horizon 

date to estimate some of the longer term effects of the proposed service such as ridership, energy 

use, and effects on air quality, as well as indirect and cumulative effects. 
Table 4.23-1: Summary of Impacts 

Area 

# 

Area Name and 

CSXT Milepost 

Limits Alternative Description 

Additional ROW 

(Acres) 

Natural Resources Geologic Resourc

Wetlands 

(Acres) 

Floodplains 

(Acres) 

Stream & River 

Crossings 

(linear feet) 

Threatened & 

Endangered 

Species and 

Habitat 

ConstructionLimiting Soils 

Prime Farmland 

Prime Soils 

(Acres) 

NRCS Form 

106 Score 

1 Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) CFP 110 – 109.3 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 0.0 0.02 0.3 0 No Unknown / Not Rated 0 0 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 1.5 0.00 0.1 0 No Unknown / Not Rated 0 0 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 0.4 0.01 0.1 0 No Unknown / Not Rated 0 0 

2 Northern Virginia 

CFP 109.3 – 62 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 33.0 5.19 15.1 7, 198 Yes Yes 53.56 66 

3 Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) CFP 62 – 48 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 2.2 5.24 7.7 1,101 Yes Yes 26.84 80 

3B Add One Track East of Existing 19.8 5.29 10.5 1,506 Yes Yes 34.01 80 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 140.5 23.82 8.0 4,597 Yes Yes 69.05 118 

4 Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) CFP 48 – 19 

4A 

Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 2.4 8.39 17.2 3,627 Yes Yes 99.17 93 

5 Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) CFP 19 – 9 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 21.9 0.41 5.9 6,928 Yes Yes 27.18 51 

5A–Ashcake 

Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

20.5 0.41 7.1 6,928 Yes Yes 28.04 46 

5B Add One Track East of Existing 29.4 0.41 6.5 9,114 Yes Yes 31.2 51 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 29.9 0.45 10.7 9,101 Yes Yes 33.82 51 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 147.8 8.44 9.2 9,005 Yes Yes 89.83 171 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 146.4 8.48 10.4 9,005 Yes Yes 90.88 171 

5D–Ashcake 

Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

36.4 0.45 11.5 8,163 Yes Yes 39.38 52 

6 Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) CFP 9 – A 011 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 76.0 3.21 8.1 7,523 Yes Yes 45.20 29 

6B–A-Line Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 101.0 2.91 11.3 9,650 Yes Yes 49.04 23 

6B–S-Line Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 78.7 3.47 48.6 8,819 Yes Yes 30.79 22 

6C Broad Street Station Only 128.1 2.99 16.1 10,886 Yes Yes 49.93 22 

6D Main Street Station Only 73.7 3.47 51.9 8,819 Yes Yes 30.93 22 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 89.1 3.31 22.2 7,952 Yes Yes 45.20 24 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 83.0 3.52 50.7 8,869 Yes Yes 31.78 19 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 81.0 3.74 48.1 8,235 Yes Yes 32.48 19 

Notes: All impacts shown are permanent impacts (i.e., not temporary disturbances due to construction activities). Any "Change" shown compares 2045 Build Alternatives to 2045 No Build conditions. Air Quality is analyze

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-240 

Table 4.23-1: Summary of Impacts 

Area 

# 

Area Name and 

CSXT Milepost 

Limits Alternative Description 

Noise Vibration 

Impacted Noise Receptors Impacted Vibration Receptors 

Category 1 

Moderate 

Category 1 

Severe 

Category 2 

Moderate 

Category 2 

Severe 

Category 3 

Moderate 

Category 3 

Severe 

Total 

Category 1 

Category 2 

Category 3 

Total 

1 Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) CFP 110 – 109.3 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 Northern Virginia 

CFP 109.3 – 62 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 0 0 670 99 6 0 775 0 15 0 15 

3 Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) CFP 62 – 48 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 0 0 66 8 1 0 75 0 0 0 0 

3B Add One Track East of Existing 0 0 67 8 1 0 76 0 0 0 0 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 2 1 2392 1524 8 5 3932 0 43 0 43 

4 Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) CFP 48 – 19 

4A 

Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 0 0 51 18 1 0 70 0 2 0 2 

5 Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) CFP 19 – 9 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 0 0 135 14 1 4 154 0 25 1 26 

5A–Ashcake 

Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

0 0 135 14 1 4 154 0 25 1 26 

5B Add One Track East of Existing 1 0 133 20 1 4 159 0 30 1 31 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 1 0 133 20 1 4 159 0 30 1 31 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 0 0 272 51 2 4 329 0 35 1 36 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 0 0 272 51 2 4 329 0 35 1 36 

5D–Ashcake 

Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

1 0 135 18 1 4 159 0 30 1 31 

6 Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) CFP 9 – A 011 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 0 0 366 8 6 0 380 0 8 0 8 

6B–A-Line Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 0 0 386 9 6 0 401 0 8 0 8 

6B–S-Line Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 0 8 0 8 

6C Broad Street Station Only 0 0 387 9 7 0 403 0 8 0 8 

6D Main Street Station Only 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 0 8 0 8 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 0 0 379 9 6 0 394 0 8 0 8 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 0 8 0 8 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 1 0 298 10 4 0 313 0 8 0 8 

Notes: All impacts shown are permanent impacts (i.e., not temporary disturbances due to construction activities). Any "Change" shown compares 2045 Build Alternatives to 2045 No Build conditions. Noise and Vibration categories defin

 Continued
Table 4.23-1: Summary of Impacts

Area 

# 

Area Name and 

CSXT Milepost Limits Alternative Description 

Park Resources Cu

Number / Acres 

Effects on Archaeological Sites Effects on Building

Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Effect 

Adverse 

Effect 

1 Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) CFP 110 – 109.3 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 0 / 0 0 0 0 1 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 1 / 1.45 0 0 0 1 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 1 / 0.36 0 0 0 1 

2 Northern Virginia 

CFP 109.3 – 62 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 1 / 0.04 0 0 0 1 

3 Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) CFP 62 – 48 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 0 / 0 0 0 3 1 

3B Add One Track East of Existing 0 / 0 1 1 1 4 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 0 / 0 0 1 0 1 

4 Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) CFP 48 – 19 

4A 

Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 0 / 0 0 0 0 3 

5 Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) CFP 19 – 9 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 0 / 0 0 0 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 

Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

1 / 0.01 0 0 0 0 

5B Add One Track East of Existing 1 / 0.03 0 0 0 7 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 2 / 0.04 0 0 0 7 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 0 / 0 0 0 0 1 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 1/ 0.01 0 0 0 1 

5D–Ashcake 

Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

1 / 0.01 0 0 0 7 

6 Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) CFP 9 – A 011 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 1 / 0.19 0 5 4 8 

6B–A-Line Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 1 / 0.19 0 5 4 16 

6B–S-Line Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 1 / 0.17 3 4 2 13 

6C Broad Street Station Only 1 / 0.19 0 5 4 16 

6D Main Street Station Only 1 / 0.17 3 4 2 7 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 1 / 0.19 0 7 2 7 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 1 / 0.17 3 4 2 7 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 1 / 0.17 3 4 2 10 

Notes: All impacts shown are permanent impacts (i.e., not temporary disturbances due to construction activities).  Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-242 

Table 4.23-1: Summary of Impacts 

Area 

# 

Area Name and 

CSXT Milepost Limits Alternative Description 

Transporta

Proposed Crossing Improvements: 

Public At-Grade Crossings 

New Public 

Crossings 

Propo

Pr

Grade 

Separate 

Closure 

Four-Quad 

Gates 

Median 

Treatment 

No Action 

Closure 

1 Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) CFP 110 – 109.3 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 Northern Virginia 

CFP 109.3 – 62 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 

3 Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) CFP 62 – 48 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 

3B Add One Track East of Existing 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 0 0 5 4 0 5 1 

4 Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) CFP 48 – 19 

4A 

Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 

5 Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) CFP 19 – 9 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 2 1 7 1 0 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 

Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

2 0 8 1 0 0 0 

5B Add One Track East of Existing 2 1 7 1 0 0 0 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 2 0 8 1 0 0 0 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 0 1 9 1 0 8 0 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 0 0 10 1 0 8 0 

5D–Ashcake 

Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

2 0 8 1 0 0 0 

6 Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) CFP 9 – A 011 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 3 4 2 1 1 0 0 

6B–A-Line Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 3 4 2 1 1 0 0 

6B–S-Line Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 4 5 4 3 1 0 0 

6C Broad Street Station Only 3 4 2 2 1 2 0 

6D Main Street Station Only 3 5 4 4 1 0 0 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 3 4 2 1 1 0 0 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 3 5 4 4 1 0 0 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 3 5 4 4 1 0 0 

Notes: All impacts shown are permanent impacts (i.e., not temporary disturbances due to construction activities). Any "Change" shown compares 2025 Build Alternatives to 2025 No Build conditions.